From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 06:48:28 BST
Scott, you said
Ok, I see the distinction you are making between 'science' and 'scientific
method', but I'm puzzled as to why.[..] 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?
OK, everybody has their "aha" moments, agreed - but not all "aha"
moments are equal. The question is HOW they get used to explain some
gap or problem in prior knowledge.
So I repeat - The Quality of Explanation.
The science / religion conflict arises, in areas where the scientific
expalantion is less complete than a religious explanation offerred,
and the presumption that the religious explanation is therefore
better. It's about Quality, not quantity.
BTW - I don't change the meaning of science, I do include the 1% with
the 99% - I was just talking about the "1%" whilst trying to explain
that science was more than "scientific method". If and when we take
this debate forward - I will be looking out for scientific method /
empirical testing being presumed to be all science is. 99% isn't good
enough, even for a pragmatist :-)
Ian
On 4/23/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 17:33:56 BST