Ron: > Eliminating all hypotheisis because it can not be empirically verified > (observed) is the > position known as positivism.
Dan: I don't think that's right. All hypotheses are imaginary: hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/ Noun: 1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. 2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Ron replies: That is what is being stated. Positivism states that Hypothisis have no value because they are not a direct observation, it is imaginary. Dan: I'm not suggesting the MOQ would say that we throw out all hypotheses or that it is aligned with positivism. Ron: > Steven Weinburg, a noted Quantum Physicist said this > about positivism: > "Wave functions are "real" for the same reasons quarks and symmetries are - > because > it is useful to include them in our theories". Dan: But he is not saying to throw out all hypotheses... in fact, he is saying they are useful. Ron replies: Correct, they are useful. Hypothisis have value and as Pirsig would say, that which has value is "real". New York, dog dishes and trees that are pre-supposed, like quarks and symmetries are "real" in the same way because they have value. >Ron: > Pirsig says something similar: > "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence > of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would > vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has > already been presupposed." > > In this light asking how to empirically verify presupposed trees is the > problem > it is a logical fallacy to even ask the question. Dan: Well, yes... that's been my position all along. However, the question has evolved over the course of the discussion to include Don's dog dish and New York City. Is New York City presupposed? And if so, can it be empirically verified without experiencing it? How about Don's dog dish? If Chris goes into the kitchen, sees the dog dish, and calls out to Don that it is still there, is that a method of empirical verification? Ron replies: Again all variations of the same theme, Pirsig would say that the presuppositions of NewYork are "real" because it has value and value is the empirical groundstuff of experience. Matt was saying that the kind of question you asked above about the kinds of empirical methods of verification are the kinds of questions a Positivist point of view would wrestle with not subscribers of a value centered reality. Thats why it is being said that the problem lies in the kinds of questions that are being asked. .. 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
