Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:limits and horizons
Posted by: Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder
Date/Time: 21/08/2002 20:21:58

Greetings Don Razi

Thanks for amplifying Horgen's remarks. We would, of course, given the position that we develop in the extended descriptions of scientific activity in Whispering, take exception to calling any activity that did not meet Popper's falsifiability requirement science - even ironic science - unless, of course, Mr. Horgen is being deliberately ironic. For us, as soon as a claim is immune from counterexample, it passes into the realm of beliefs along with religion,,,  We are not proposing that there is no value in such activities, only that we have moved into the kingdom of personal preferences and out of reach of effective research.

The idea that we are approaching the limits of "hard" science has been proposed numerous times in the past and each time (so far) have proven to be inaccurate. As we argued in Whispering, there is a crying need for an epistemology of instrumentation - we do not see any approach to the limits of scientific activity - this is equivalent to saying that science is fundamentally a process of discovery and model building. If the present models are at variance (and some definitely are) with "common sense", then may they serve as a corrective influence to common sense. Have you ever succeeded in sensing the earth moving backward and down as you faced west watching a sunset?

We find ourselves more or less in agreement with the sense of your question to us about the difference in quality between the early models and subsequent work. In part (we mentioned this in Whispering) it is a comment about the failure of Bandler and myself (JG) to make explicit the processes of modeling - Whispering is, in part, designed to begin to correct that flaw. In part, the difference in quality is a function of the lack of precision in the terminology and reporting vocabulary - two issues we address in Whispering.

As we mentioned in Whispering, we have some difficulty with Dilts' modeling of dead people for reasons stated there - most powerfully of which is the inability of the modeler when faced with such a task to respect the phases of modeling as outlined in the book - in particular, the ability to do an unconscious uptake of the patterning (suspended f2 filters) and meeting the criterion of being able to reproduce the effects the model has on the world before attempting to codigy the patterning involved.

All the best,

John and Carmen 

Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
limits and horizons20/08/2002 04:02:35Don Razi
     Re:limits and horizons20/08/2002 17:42:53John Grinder
          Re:Re:limits and horizons21/08/2002 06:45:38Don Razi
               Re:Re:Re:limits and horizons21/08/2002 20:21:58Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder

Forum Home