From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 21:28:08 BST
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 18 2005 - 23:59:53 BST