From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 04:06:39 BST
Ian,
Ok, I see the distinction you are making between 'science' and 'scientific
method', but I'm puzzled as to why. What you call 'science' I call
'hypothesis formation', or (after Peirce) 'abduction', or if emphasizing the
dramatic, '"aha!" moments'. Or one could speak of the
discovery/fun/dynamic/exciting 1% of science versus the /drudgery/static 99%
of science. But to apply the word 'science' to just the 1% is to change the
meaning of the word for no good purpose that I can see. You call it a "key
point", but I don't see it. If you are emphasizing that there is no
pre-defined way to produce novel hypotheses, I certainly agree. But it has
nothing in particular to do with science. Philosophy and theology and any
other form of inquiry also have their 'aha!' moments.
But mainly, what does this distinction have to do with any of the issues
being debated? For example, how is this relevant to the issue of whether
science and religion are in conflict? (Actually, I would say that noting
that hypothesis formation is a part of reality gives support to a religious
outlook, or at least Platonism.)
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: MD Access to Quality
Scott, you said
I think we are in agreement on defending scientific explanations over
dogmatic explanations where science's writ is clear, but isn't that a given
outside fundamentalist circles? That has been my point. Of course we are
debating over the extent of that writ.
Ian says I agree about the sticking point.
The "bounds" of science.
Scott also said
By "science" I mean physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy,
biology,... -- whatever people do to get results that gets peer
reviewed and published in scientific journals. Scientific method is
whatever those people did to get those results.
And, as I keep saying it is this distinction between science as a
whole (though I was actually only talking about physics don't forget,
not all the derived sciences) on the one hand and "scientific method"
on the other, is the key point.
(Aside - until we get above the bio / life level - all science is
physics - life is as fundamental as physics - separate debate.)
Continuing, I say. I wasn't talking about the bounds of science in a
breadth / scope of subject matter sense - I was talking depth and
types of explanation. Good scientific papers make use of more than
"scientific method". The scientific method is used only to weed out
false hypotheses by empirical testing, or to produce data for others
to use to falsify hypotheses. The creative stuff in scientific papers
requires "explantion" based on a quality of insights that does not
arise or get induced out of the testing and results. The "one part
inspiration", as it has been called, is more important than the 99
parts perspiration, in terms of making progress with knowledge.
The 99 parts "mechanical" testing, reporting and analysis of results,
makes up 99% of the "business" of science - justifying and supporting
industrial sponsors, justifying funding for research areas, getting
academic publication and citation rates up, justifying air-fares to
conferences, etc ... all for that elusive opportunity to stumble on
the 1% inspiration that actually advances knowledge.
(Ignore my rant about being "burned at the stake" - it says more about
my depth of feeling than "complex historical facts" can prove anything
- as I keep saying. Shot myself in the foot there. Sorry.)
That 1%, is 100% of what I'm talking about. The crucial part of
science beyond "scientific method".
It's the fact that for 100 years or so this 1% has been characterised
as "inspiration", and other non-scientific-sounding language, that
caused me to see it in the same space as Pirsig's Kantian-derived
"pre-cognitive" pure experience. (Hence the confusion of experience,
quality and empiricism as an MoQ topic.)
(I could take this further into other borderline science subjects -
like Pirsig did with "anthropology" - and the extent to which they can
be "scientific" in the epirical testing method sense, or not, and who
cares, but that's not my current area of interest - The very word
"scientific" has become loaded with baggage and political corrctness
in general use. Hence I keep banging on about Memes too.)
I'll stop there for now.
Ian
On 4/22/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Scott, you said
> It is dogmatic because you have selected physis as the basis for
explaining
> psyche, logos, etc., without having in hand even a hint of an explanation
> for psyche and logos in terms of physics.
>
> Ian said:
> I say absolutely not - I haven't offered any such explanations yet in
> this thread, but I assure you "physics" has the best explantions I've
> seen. Show me a better quality explanation - I'll buy it - I promise
> you. (Physics doesn't stand or fall on the quality of MY explanation -
> thankfully - it has plenty of its own as I've more than hinted.) I
> didn't "select" physis / physics on the basis of any dogma - I have
> gravitated towards it, on finding it provided the better
> expolanations.
>
> Scott:
> My better explanation is that the problem of explaining consciousness is a
> pseudo-problem arising from a commitment to physicalism. "Investigation",
> "explanation", "description" are all activities of consciousness. To
attempt
> to explain consciousness is like attempting to explain reality, or
> existence, as such.
>
> Scott added:
> This is fine if you are looking for a quality explanation of [old
> fashioned classical "physical" things].
>
> Ian replies
> Sorry, but that's just not so Scott. "New physics" can explain far
> more, better, as far as I can tell, and I am looking very hard. (I'm
> getting into Dawkins territory here - not a place I want to be - I
> really am not dogmatically pro-science .... EXCEPT when I'm defending
> it against dogma - just like Dawkins spends his life doing bless him.
> That darned catch-22 again. On a level playing field I actually
> started very anti-science as I said already.)
>
> Scott:
> I had QED in mind as the explanation of electricity. What do you have in
> mind that the new physics has an explanation for?
>
> I think we are in agreement on defending scientific explanations over
> dogmatic explanations where science's writ is clear, but isn't that a
given
> outside fundamentalist circles? That has been my point. Of course we are
> debating over the extent of that writ.
>
> Ian said:
> The crux as far as this debate is concerned is here ...
> (What Scott and many others seem to understand by "science")
> Scott said earlier [snip]
> "Scientism" as "the principle that SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> can and should be applied in all fields of investigation." [..]
> thinking of it as the principle that only that which science can
> investigate is real [..]
> [Ian is] in conflict with religion, while science itself is not.
>
> Ian repeats - this is a very important misunderstanding.
> The kind of science your are talking about is the platonic kind that
> snuggled up to the establishment church for a couple of millenia (to
> avoid being burned at the stake, etc.) and allowed itself to be
> thought of as "scientific method" in order not to conflict with
> religious dogma beyond the realms of "scientific method".
>
> Scott:
> I think this is screwed up. The kind of science I am talking about
scarcely
> existed until the 17th century. The Inquisition didn't get established
until
> the second millenium, and it was about rooting out heretical religion, not
> science. (Galileo had to recant because he claimed that heliocentrism was
> true, and therefore the Bible was false, which at the time was heresy. He
> would have been okay if he had just said that the heliocentric model was a
> better model for producing calculations.)
>
> But your last bit I don't understand. What does scientific method have to
do
> with dogma? It is scientific results that conflicted with dogma.
>
> Scott confirms his impression ...
> Science works well on the repeatable and empirically testable.
> Otherwise, not.
>
> Ian repeats ...
> That is a statement about "scientific method" NOT science.
> Science is far more than scientific method, despite what the memes say.
> (Something I've repeated many times BTW in this thread.)
> On that basis I am most definitely not a "scientism-ist".
>
> Popper was so nearly right, but misunderstood I'm beginning to
> suspect, by me too.
> Agree or not, am I making sense, before I go on ?
>
> Scott:
> I'm afraid you are not making sense to me. By "science" I mean physics,
> chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology,... -- whatever people do to get
> results that gets peer reviewed and published in scientific journals.
> Scientific method is whatever those people did to get those results
> (excluding plagiarism or falsifying data). One can note family
resemblances
> in those methods, so one can say that if similar methods are used by some
> amateur in a garage, then that amateur is approaching a problem
> scientifically, even if no results are obtained, or nothing gets
published.
> I do not consider an investigation into the literary merits of Shakespeare
> to be science, or theology or philosophy. There are many borderline cases.
> Is philology a science? I'm not sure. Linguistics? Partly, but when it
gets
> into semantics, no. Psychology? Partly, but usually turns out badly (e.g.,
> behaviorism). Note that I said science "works well" in the repeatable and
> empirically testable -- not that it doesn't work at all in the
> non-repeatable and non-empirically testable.
>
> So, no, I do not know what you mean in distinguishing "scientific method"
> from "science". I've gone back in this thread to where you joined in in
> response to my "not in conflict" statement, and don't find any indication
of
> what you mean by "science is far more than scientific method", so I guess
> that needs clarification, or a pointer.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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
>
>
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
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 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 05:03:27 BST