From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Oct 28 2004 - 01:55:08 BST
But the real empirical evidence was what was observable, and the reports of experience was what was unobservable. So to distinguish the "experiences" you reverted to the scientific sense of the word. I still think it is telling that you use the word "real" with what is observable. I didn't mean an apology of science. I meant it seems like it is an apology TO science. Shouldn't science be the one changing, since it is the one with incorrect assumptions. Again I know no field "owns" a word, but empirical for me is associated with how the sciences uses it and they demand for the experience to be measured/observed I thought. By adopting the term and stretching it to situations I don't think the scientific world would accept it, it just seems apologetic.
Erin
Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:Me again.
I was distinguishing real empirical evidence from reports of
experience presented as empirical evidence. Sorry for the
confusion.
BTW, science requires no apology from me or anyone else. It is an
incredibly powerful and useful system of thought and investigation.
Anyone who denies this is simply not paying attention to the world
around them. My only quibble with science is its lack of interest in
making value judgements. But that's why we have ethical philosophies
like the Metaphysics of Quality.
Best again,
Mark
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 28 2004 - 01:57:24 BST