Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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?
Well, as best I can tell, you put your trust in what scientists say is the
case. But as I'm sure you know, scientists can look at the same data and
arrive at different conclusions. For example, recently there was a debate
among scientists about whether certain marks in rock samples indicated
there was once life on Mars. Also as I'm sure you know, consensus among
scientists as to the "facts" have sometimes been proven wrong. An example
is the infamous Piltdown Man hoax. As to the global warming controversy,
politics is involved, casting further suspicion on who has the "facts."
When somebody like Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy says such and such is the
"truth," and therefore we need more control over people's lives, my confidence
meter registers zero.
Hope this is responsive. Thanks for the discussion.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
