From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 21:35:40 BST
Hi all
What do we think a science based on MOQ would look like?
Pirsig is right to say you can junk a determinist notion
of causality and SOM and still pretty much get on
with science as is. Instead of push-me-pull you causes
we would just recognise regularities and patterns.
But what does science do that other forms of phenomenal
description do not do? Science experiments with nature.
It does not just describe what nature does if you watch it.
Science intervenes and sets up special experimental tests.
Now it can only do this if if first sets out an experimental
description. This incorporates many assumptions about nature
up front, in the very language used to set upand describe the nature
of the experiment. My view is that scientists impose a language on
nature. An experiment sets up a question that is directed towards
nature, the expt is controlled and set off and the 'results' are analysed.
We have in advance determined the language, posed the question and
defined the possible answers. Such are the epistemological problems
ditto post-modernism. But nevertheless the scientist listens to nature,
listens for the answer that is given, sees which choice nature prefers,
which box she ticks. Of course we can have no idea of any language
preferences nature might have. But to do science we have to ask
questions and interpret the signs our dumb goddess provides. This
is an odd thing that the men in white coats do not like to mention.
SOM is a bit embarassed about it.
DM
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 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 23:15:02 BST