Re: MD Sam's Eudaimonia

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 20:56:57 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "MD "Progressive" conservative ideas (today's oxymoron)"

    Hi Ian

    Just the last bit, I agree science has been slow
    to rethink itself in the light of its own findings
    but feel there is some light appearing in the last
    few years.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:42 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Sam's Eudaimonia

    > Hi David M & Sam,
    >
    > The block quote you are referring to is my words, not Sam's, and I'd
    > be the first to own up to it not being a coherent case (yet), but you
    > get the essential point.
    >
    > Glad you agree - sometimes I feel I'm ploughing a lonely furrow on MD.
    >
    > Which specific last bit didn't you get - the whole block generally or
    > the final sentence in particular ? I'd like to enlighten if I can.
    >
    > Ian
    >
    > On 8/19/05, David M <davidint@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    >> > Nature IS physics IS MoQ IS good quality science IS the best
    >> > explanation of anything; There is nothing else. MoQ highlights (and
    >> > almost solves) things missing from "current" (SOMist) physics and
    >> > science. As a "science" physics is by definition always expanding and
    >> > updating itself. Looking at the most philosophical of modern
    >> > scientists, and the most scientific of modern philosophers, everyone
    >> > seems to recognise the SAME explanatory gaps, and the proposals for
    >> > plugging them look remarkably similar to me from the MoQ perspective.
    >> > A perspective which no modern philosophers and scientists seem to
    >> > have, despite the fact that physics learned almost a century ago that
    >> > SOMist objectivity is for the birds. Look at my posts on scientists
    >> > not adopting their own best explanations as everyday common sense -
    >> > after Deutsch.
    >>
    >>
    >> Hi Sam
    >>
    >> Not sure what your last bit is saying. There is a lot in the philosophy
    >> of
    >> science that sounds close to MOQ at the moment such as John Dupre,
    >> Roy Bhaskar, Prigogine, and Nicholas Maxwell. I do agree that science and
    >> phil of
    >> science have been slow to see the implications of the death of SOM,
    >> determinism, essentialism and reductionism. But I think the turn is now
    >> taking place.
    >>
    >> regards
    >> David M
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 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 : Mon Aug 22 2005 - 04:40:55 BST