[Platt]
> What I asked is how do you choose the sources your
> rely on for
> accurate information? So far you haven't answered.
> So to repeat, on what
> basis do you decide that the "reseachers" and the
> "study" you mention
> provide you with accurate information? It's not a
> trick question. See the
> discussion Arlo and I are having on this question.
The peer reviews, the fieldwork, the samples
collected, all of these combine subjective and
objective activities. Peer reviews, solely, are
philosophical in nature. Collecting samples in the
field is where science tries to enhance peer reviews
for the peer reviews, in scientific discussions, are
to be further supported by samples collected in the
field. Thus, a bridging of what people might think,
alone, with what the earth and sky might offer
hands-on is pragmatic, is not just thinking, not just
empirical observation, but hands-on. Hands-on
includes experimentation. Now here's an example, how
does one scientifically go about describing nebulae?
We can observe nebulae, and point them out, but what
samples could we collect? Well, they are so far away,
hands-on would seem impossible. So, how does somebody
bring nebula samples to a peer review?
Experimentation is the answer. I don't know the
details, but by, I believe it is, 'electrifying' (not
sure, but what I am sure of is) each element and
molecule will give off a specific color/glow. These
are compared with the colors observed and then
scientists know those colors seen must be such and
such element or molecule. Now, could these colors be
some kind of unknown element, molecule, or even
something else? Yes, and how these conclusions are
supported is by assuming the periodic table is
correct, the color method is correct, etc... I'm
giving a very simple layman's review of how this comes
about, and I'm no astronomer. I'm probably leaving
HUGE gaps in how this works. I'm just trying to point
out the very general way science conducts its'
methodology. Now, in light of how science does this,
as opposed to just thinking or just collecting samples
without though, I'd say these two latter if combined
is what science does. The way to argue scientific
conclusions, actually the only credible way, is to
bring samples and thought to the table. Philosophers
argue with scientists when they notice scientists
coming to conclusions without samples/data to support
their thoughts. Scientists argue with other
scientists for the same reasons. Gould, a scientists,
is well-known for arguing against some scientific
conclusions that become story bound or too theoretical
without actually providing any evidence to their
fanciful story. Now, what of fiction and bedtime
stories. What science is only interested in, as of
this point, is what is currently happening and
describing the present with supportive samples/data
and thoughtful insight into these samples. So,
fiction and bedtime stories provide I would say
delightful breaths of beauty about the world science
isn't interested in, but human beings thrive upon for
joy, peace, and imaginative food to feed our
light-hearted creativity. Fiction and science are
both events and its' not about disproving either one
in the larger realm of the world, for they both offer
something. So, fiction and bedtime stories are not in
question here.
So, when it comes to what is happening to our
streams, rivers, and soil, I can't just look at them
without applying value. I find clean drinking water
and clean air to be of value. I find animals to be of
value. To say they're going extinct and oh this has
nothing to do with us is a question of truth.
Intellect tries to find truths of what's happening.
Societies, such as peer reviews, are social
establishments of that listen to intellect. Do you
have other ways of finding truth? As I've asked of
you, how do you correctly establish truth? As I've
also said to you, in the dynamic quality view of all
these truths, take them as a grain of salt for a
larger ocean might exist. Dq says all sq's are mights
depending on what static quality your trying to
establish. Gravity is a static quality, and thus,
according to dq, gravity is a might, that can be
replaced with something better, but when will gravity
be replaced with something better? So, notice,
sometimes something better, even better truths, if
your waiting for them, could be 'betters' that you may
wait for a very, very, very, almost infinite very long
time or maybe infinite long time, you never know.
This is how I've put on the MoQ spectacles.
Does this help?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
