On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > [Platt] > Thanks. I think I get the picture. It's a fairly static system of > establishing > belief. But, as Pirsig pointed out, its saving grace is willingness to > change > in the light of new evidence, although that's sometimes tough to do. At the > bottom of it all is trust in those who produce the empirical data who, > being > > human, may have hidden agendas. One can wonder what's in it for them. > > [Krimel] > I don't think this is all that static and I think the various systems that > involve these approach are set up to allow dynamic answers to emerge from > the process. > > Of course humans have agenda's hidden or otherwise but in most cases of > honest inquiry the idea is to either bring those agendas to light so as to > factor them into the process or to control for whatever influence they > might > have. Science for example is inherently skeptical in is approach and it > treats its findings provisionally. I think you on the other hand are > suggesting that because people have agendas, they must be self serving and > honest inquiry is not possible. This may not be what you think or what you > are suggesting but if it is I think it moves past skepticism into cynicism. > > [Platt] Just suggesting that scientists and those who use scientific methods are human, subject to the same temptations as anyone else, like government funding. Not cynical, realistic. Also, I recognize that science operates under certain basic assumptions that its method cannot prove, like determinism, reductionism, materialism and the ever-popular emergentism. That's what I meant by it being a fairly static system.
> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
