Russell,

While I agree in many points, specifically your reservations about
considering anything in science, including evolution (and of course also
Evolution), a fact, I think you went off on a tangent with the PS/NPS stuff
that more distracts from than supports your basic point (at least as I
understand it).

I don't think there's anything in the PS/NPS distinction that helps
understanding your position towards evolution, because it can be explained
from both ends, equally... and because the PS/NPS distinction doesn't bring
any value into the discussion (at least according to Popper).


Russell McMahon wrote:

> In both PS and NPs one cannot ever know for sure but in NPS it is far 
> easier to fool yourself.

This may or may not be so... this is definitely a theory outside of PS, and
as such it may be quite easy to fool yourself here :)

> In PS it is generally unusual to find two or more mature models of equal
> quality. 

Again a theory that's definitely NPS. I find it interesting that most of
the discussion about PS here seems to be using NPS theories about the
implications of PS.

> In NPS it is far far more likely to find two or more mature models 
> which may be of equal quality. I say "may be" because it is not 
> possible to tell if they are or not. 

Not only in NPS it is impossible to tell which theory is of "better
quality", this is the same with PS. Unless a PS theory is falsified, it is
valid. If it is falsified, it is not valid. Other than that, there are no
real (and especially no generally agreed-upon) criteria about the "quality"
of a theory -- not in PS, not in NPS, not anywhere else.

> All the above is NOT a dig at Evolution but shows the sort of
> considerations that can arise when attempting to support NPS's
> unavoidably horse after cart approach. Again, this is not a complaint
> against NPs, just an observation of how it does and must work.

I think here you are throwing oranges and apples (and kiwis and ... :) in
one basket. There are many NPS disciplines that don't use a horse after
cart approach any more than PS disciplines do that. But there are many
disciplines that by definition /have/ to be NPS; which doesn't take
anything away from their importance, their meaning, or any other value you
may bestow on PS.

While some people probably use an NPS approach out of doubtful reasons (for
example, out of fear of being proven wrong) where a PS approach would be
possible or more adequate, many people use an NPS approach because they
study an issue that's simply outside of PS.

So I think your attack on attempts to sell NPS as "science" by showing that
it's not PS is misguided. This is because you imply (or state explicitly)
that PS is somehow closer to the "truth" or some such than NPS. That's ok
as a belief frame, but it's definitely not good old PS -- and there this
dog bites itself in the tail. 

> To brieeeeeefly address a point from elsewhere. It helps to know if the
> theory one is dealing with is PS or NPS. As I stated elsewhere, and
> Gerhard agreed with (without noticing that I'd said it explicitly
> further up the email)(easily done) is that both PS and NPS deal with
> things which are ultimately unknowable. 

That wasn't without noticing this... but then, you repeatedly stated quite
explicitly that you think that PS is closer to the "truth" or something
similar. You seem to jump between these two positions, and it's not easily
clear where you are with that. Is PS better (or closer to the "truth", or
...) than NPS? If so, why? Is this theory (that PS is better, or closer to
the "truth", or ... than NPS) a PS theory? If it is not, is it a good
theory? If it is a good NPS theory, can't there be other good NPS theories?
What ultimately tells you whether a theory (PS or NPS) is a good one? So
why reject NPS as of minor importance, quality, ... if you yourself see
yourself forced to use NPS theories in discussing the superior value of PS?


[Side note: I seem to see that you look at this whole thing more with
religious eyes than with cold logic eyes. Which I don't say as being a bad
thing, but it has implications on the type of argumentation that makes
sense :) ]


> However, to convince an NPS believer that he is wrong you CANNOT break
> his model - you have to break his mind. 

That is pretty equally valid for PS. You can falsify a theory, but that
doesn't necessarily make someone abandon the theory; often they start
working on refining the theory. Whether they get there or not is not really
of importance; the issue is that until they get there, they follow (have to
follow) their beliefs. Which is not so different from what happens in many
NPS. 

> It takes a flood-tide in the minds of men to destroy an entrenched NPS
> model. 

It wasn't really easy to bring in relativity and quantum physics, even
though most of Newtonian physics is pretty close to PS -- and as such it
shouldn't have taken much to bring in theories that explain the already
explained phenomena and some hitherto not explained ones. But it actually
took a "flood-tide in the minds of men" to get there.

> But I am attacking the concept of demanding that our children (or we)
> should have to think in mental straight jackets. That they should be
> told that some lines of thought are unnacceptable. That some unfounded
> beliefs are definitely wrong. 

I think the implicit assumption that PS is somehow "better", closer to the
"truth", more "acceptable" than NPS falls into this category of "unfounded
beliefs". I think what they should also learn is that science (in any form,
PS, NPS, CS, whatever) can never replace knowing who you are and where you
stand, as everything else derives from that. That's your only fixed point
in the universe.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist