From your short response, I assume that you agreed with what I had
posted. I read the quotes below and wonder what you are thinking, and
how this addresses my statement that you left in. These quotes did
beg some clarification, since science I know something about. I
certainly hope that you will consider my level of expertise to be
somewhat above yours on this field. I will leave James in your
Also your quotes do not mention radical empiricism once. Was there a
reason for this? Am I missing something? How do those quotes address
the concept of imagination?
If you are unable to follow what I write, please let me know.
Ask questions for that which I have not presented clearly.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan@hotm...> wrote:
> Mark said:
> One problem that I see with radical empiricism (probably because I do not know much about it), which is in effect the scientific method as I see it, is the non-inclusion of the imagination.
> dmb says:
> I believe you were way off on the wrong foot with your very first sentence. Luckily, somebody else pulled this series of quotes together already. Copy and paste.....
> Arrival at the Metaphysics of Quality
> The Scientific Method
> ±³The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite.´
> ³If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It isa catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method! If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that allhypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishingproven knowledge.´
dmb, I am not sure how much you know about the scientific method, of
if you present these quotes as your opinion. I will assume that you
do. As I have explained, the scientific method is no different from
putting you hand in the shower to see if it is warm yet. That is the
scientific method. As a non-scientist I can forgive you for making
science something other than it is. Could you provide me an example
where this expansion of hypothesis have taken place so as to make
Science creates truth in the same way that metaphysics does. It
presents models for consideration. It is indeed not true that all
hypothesis need to be tested, just like a metaphysics does not need
every contingency to be proven for such a thing to be accepted. So
this notion of scientific failure is simply wrong. Every time you put
your hand in a shower you may get a different answer. This does not
mean that the method for interrogation is invalid. It may help you if
you read some on the scientific method and some philosophy of science
before you claim to be understanding of science.
> ³Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else.´³The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypotheticaltruths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science hasdone exactly the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information,theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truthsto multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, theindeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is noneother than science itself.´
Yes, of course scientific truth is not dogma. It is only the lay
person that thinks it is. You certainly do not consider it to be
dogma, do you? We scientist certainly do not. The purpose of science
is to present the best model for a set of data. There is no single
truth involved, never was. There is always disagreement on what the
data symbolizes. This is similar to disagreement on a metaphysics.
So, what you claim of science's purpose is patently untrue. Who ever
said that science was supposed to eliminate indeterminacy? Science is
always changing, that is the nature of science. It is always
indeterminate and tries its best to provide the best and most useful
model. It is pretty successful in that considering technology and the
improvements in medicine. I am not quite sure why you place science
on such a high pedestal. It is simply a form of metaphysics. It
attempts to present a model of the nature of things, nothing more. If
you do put it on a high pedestal and then tear it down, you really
have not accomplished anything. Sometimes it is appropriate for
metaphysicians to stay away from things that they only dally in.
Scientists would tear you appart.
> Quality -³Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is recognized by a non-thinkingprocess. Because definitions are a product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined.´³He had to answer the question, If you can¶t define it, what makes you think it exists? Hisanswer was an old one belonging to a philosophic school that called itself realism. ³A thingexists,´ he said, ³if a world without it can¶t function normally. If we can show that a world without Quality functions abnormally, then we have shown that Quality exists, whether it¶sdefined or not.´
I am not sure where you draw the demarkation for "thinking". Most
thinking we are never aware of. We only present that part of the
thinking that makes sense in a societal context and we want to
exchange that with resulted in this attention thinking. Yes, of
course Quality cannot be defined, but this is not unusual for many,
many things. Only words can be defined, since we create them. What
we have are representations of the qualities of things. These are not
definitions, they are useful methods for conversation. There are so
many things that we cannot define that do exist, that such
illumination is nonsense to one versant in MoQ. So, yes, gravity
exists because the world does not exist without it. But there is no
definition for gravity. All we see are its effects, same as Quality.
Quality is no different from the majority of existing things. Again,
the quote is presented for the preschooler.
> ´³Does this undefined ³quality´ of yours exist in the things we observe?´ they asked. ³Or is itsubjective, existing only in the observer?´³If Quality exists in the object, then you must explain just why scientific instruments are unableto detect it. You must suggest instruments that will detect it, or live with the explanation that instruments don´t detect it because your whole Quality concept, to put it politely, is a large pile of nonsense. On the other hand, if Quality is subjective, existing only in the observer, then this Quality that you make so much of is just a fancy name for whatever you like.´
Scientific instruments can only detect the measurable. Most of
everything is not measurable, and the state of measurement of those
that are is still in the stone age. We have not come very far in
3,000 years. We are still discovering things that were already known
back then. Science only deals with a very small part of our
existence. I will agree with the quote that Quality is not
subjective, but that goes without saying.
> ³His Quality...´excellence,´ ³worth,´ ³goodness´...was not a physical property and was notmeasurable.´
Yes, and what is your point here? Beauty, desire, and faith are not
measurable. Although some will claim that faith is measurable and
then use science to try to disprove it. Science cannot prove or
disprove any of these things. That is not the purpose of science. I
am sure you know this.
> ³And so: he rejected the left horn. Quality is not objective, he said. It doesn¶t reside in thematerial world. Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not subjective, he said. It doesn¶treside merely in the mind. And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in thehistory of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two.
Well, I can expand on this. Quality is what separates the subjective
from the objective. Through formal logic it can be shown that Quality
creates both the subjective and the objective. I have been saying
this for years. There are only horns if one creates them. That
Phaedrus was able to realize this is similar to the enlightenments in
many religions over the millennia. However I do have a problem with
the statement of "a third entity". For that is an objective
description which Quality does not fall under, remember? Besides, it
cannot be independent since it creates the objective and the
subjective. Remember that Quality is the source? Or has the thinking
changed on this? Sometimes I cannot keep up with where you are in
MoQ. What progress have you made with MoQ?
In summary, I find many flaws in your quotes. It sounds more like a
rant against some phantasm of Science. If you would like to dispute
this with me, then I am happy to listen. If you do not, then I will
assume that you will agree with me as you did with the body of my
previous presentation. Perhaps this is over your head, and you still
seem to operate from the SO paradigm. But perhaps not. Your response
will certainly clarify where you are at.
Thanks again for the quotes, they brought back memories.