Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Dear John,
> The accuracy of any scientific hypothesis does not depend
> on who or what discovered it or on any methods of thinking,
> any techniques of problem solving, or any apparatus that
> he, she, or it might have used to arrive at the hypothesis.
Would you object, if I would add to the above paragraph of yours (just for completeness and clarification purposes, since it appears tome that you have said it explicitly and also implied it multiple times) that the above accuracy should be "objectively" assessed by the "objective" experimental data ?
Further speaking (now on my behalf only) - how this "objective assessment" could be achieved - is another serious issue ...
It is much *easier* to proof that the *assessment* is *objective* if the "scientific hypothesis" is expressed as mathematical formulation (or in any other "quantative" *format*) - would you agree with my statement, John ?
Alex
-- "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
Chris,
Again, you miss the point:
CL> A classic example of this is modern interpretations
> of quantum mechanics where the originators had no idea
> what was going on 'in here' and as such used their
> imagination (due to 'pressures' to interpret what they,
> and their XOR-realm models, were coming up with.) In that
> utilisation, the XOR perspective of consciousness dominated
> all, such that the AND nature present in our species-nature,
> a nature integrated with the environment through instincts/habits,
> was not recognised - IOW the 'failure' was in not compensating
> for our consciousness being a PART of our being, not the WHOLE
> of our being and as such one level of reality removed from what
> our species has adapted to.
You're addressing very important issues of methodology and
interpretation. Those issues are certainly strongly dependent
on human psychology, neurophysiology, and, even more importantly,
sociology. Nevertheless, the simple point I was trying to make
remains as true as ever:
The accuracy of any scientific hypothesis does not depend
on who or what discovered it or on any methods of thinking,
any techniques of problem solving, or any apparatus that
he, she, or it might have used to arrive at the hypothesis.
There is no question that the methods and apparatus are critical
to the production of the original data, and scientists normally
try to reproduce experiments to check the methodology. But that
is during the stages of gathering data. After a hypothesis has
been formulated, it is tested by every conceivable method. In
fact, the best tests for any hypothesis are ones that are based
on methods of testing that are as remote as possible from the
methods used to derive the original data.
Quantum mechanics is an excellent illustration of my point.
Schrödinger's equation, which is nearly 80 years old and which
has had further corrections for relativistic effects, is still
amazingly successful in predicting the results of experiments
that had never been imagined 80 years ago. Many of the results
are counterintuitive for the mere humans who are faced with
problems of interpreting them and reconciling them with common
sense. Yet despite the problems of interpretation, its accuracy
in predicting a very wide range of phenomena is truly remarkable.
That is what I've been trying to say: the methods for confirming
a hypothesis are *independent* of any methods for arriving at the
hypothesis.
Summary, you are undoubtedly an intelligent person who has done
a lot of reading and thinking about some important issues.
But you are also an irascible person who is trying to sell your
own pet theories without being willing to consider alternatives,
and I have a natural aversion to pushy salesmen.
John