Re: MD Access to Quality

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 10:24:49 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design"

    Sam,

    Feyerabend I know only by indirect reference - remind me which
    specific article / book you are referring to - I'd be interested.

    My point of doubt / scepticism remains the "fitting the facts" concept.
    ie Essentially empirical, but without "explanation".
    But I'm game to learn.

    Thanks
    Ian

    On 4/26/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > Hi Ian,
    >
    > > Sorry Sam, but that's not a "quibble".
    > >
    > > My point precisely is that "evidence" is loaded in some logical
    > > positivist empirical test sense and no astronomer / scientist, however
    > > genius / inspired was going to have that kind of "evidence".
    > > It's the classic religious - "go on, prove me wrong" challenge -
    > > utterly meaningless, based on a scientific misunderstanding about
    > > "proof" - focussing only on scientific method. And as I pointed out
    > > elsewhere characterising it as "Farewell to Reason" is really
    > > "Farewell to old logical positivist reason, and on to new higher
    > > quality reason."
    >
    > Have you read the Feyarabend article? I think you'd find it interesting. So
    > far as I understand it, the dispute was exactly about evidence etc.
    > Galileo's assertion didn't fit the available facts (because he was assuming
    > perfect circles for the orbits etc) whereas the Ptolemaic system, despite
    > being complex and ugly, still did. Feyarabend discusses the guiding
    > assumptions (like Biblical inerrancy etc) and makes what I think is the very
    > strong point that the Vatican was prepared to back down if there had been
    > evidence supporting Galileo's point of view - and evidence in just the way
    > that you would accept, evidence that wasn't all that long in coming forward
    > (ie change some assumptions about the nature of the orbits and hey presto,
    > the calculations fit). So it's not the classic religious 'prove me wrong'.
    > Yes, it's still empirical, but that was the nature of the dispute, wasn't
    > it?
    >
    > Sam
    >
    > 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 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 11:39:16 BST