From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 03:43:22 BST
Sam,
(Well spotted, yes, I missed an negative in that sentence - I did
notice but guessed you'd spot it was implied.)
Rather than explain "scientific",
I'd rather focus the on "explanation in the physical (real) world"
(Remember so far, I was really talking about "physics" - we just
slipped into "science" short-hand, to avoid the olde-worlde "material"
presumptions of the physical.)
It will take more than a few sentences to do that.
(I first recommended my last significant read on this subject David
Deutsch - The Fabric of Reality.)
Q - Explain why would you not jump off the Eiffel Tower ?
A - Clue - don't try an empirical test - it may be your last.
I will attempt in my own words - at the coming weekend perhaps.
As I say so far I was just after getting the right agenda - a level
playing field. The arguments are harder, almost by definition - if
they were easy, we wouldn't have this problem.
Ian
On 4/28/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> > What I now realise (last 3 years) is that it wasn't science that was
> > the problem - it was a dreadful populist caricature of science - cold
> > logic, logical-positivism, scientific method, empiricism, twisted to
> > political ends - rhetoric dressed as logic - that was the problem. The
> > more decent science and philosphy I've read, the more I am now
> > convinced that given a level playing field there is reason to set any
> > bounds to scientific explanation of truth in the real world.
>
> I suspect we're really very close on a lot of things (leaving Christianity
> to one side for a second). Now, assuming that you missed out a 'no' in your
> last sentence above, (ie "the more I am now convinced that given a level
> playing field there is NO reason to set any bounds to scientific explanation
> of truth in the real world") could you unpack what counts as 'scientific' in
> that sentence? I have a suspicion it would be something I could agree with
> wholeheartedly, but I'm not sure.
>
> Cheers
> 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 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 04:53:59 BST