The Nonfalsifiability of the Integral Method (IMP).

A doctor once told me that talking to a crazy person makes me look crazy.  However, because of a curious insight that I just had and felt compelled to share with others on the forum, I'm having to speak in third-person language in reference to Brian's comment to share my insight with others (and to Sean as well, should you still be engaged in this thread).  I may elaborate on Integral Ecology's approach to IMP separately on a later post, so am merely using Brian's comment on scientific facts from Integral Ecology for the purpose of comparison and contrast with his and Integral Ecology's treatment of facts in its climate change section.

Brian's comment above on scientific fact (p. 344, Integral Ecology) confuses agreement with the consensus with religious dogma or belief.  Integral Ecology's critique of scientific fact is actually more nuanced and is concerned instead with the limitations of right-hand knowledge and methodologies than with fact-checking or with science vs. myth.  What is more, whereas Brian's belief in imaginary global forces, conspiracy theories, and hope for deliverance from the forces of evil and salvation in the form of a nonexistent future technology (i.e. cold fusion or hydrinos) is meant to serve as a critique for agreement with the consensus (which he equates with blind faith in the consensus), it differs little from religious fanaticism.  Thus, Sean's belief is far more credible and far more grounded in reality.  Ultimately, Brian's issue appears to be more of a psychological one.  Not a stage-level pathology for Brian, but rather a sign of pathology or delusion originating in the paranoid person. 

Moving on.

Sean's and Michael Zimmerman's arguments are certainly more nuanced and persuasive than Brian's simpleton beliefs of science vs. religion and conspiracy theories yet are still not altogether persuasive to me.  What they are arguing instead is that scientific research, data, and "facts" are context-dependent and are from a perspective (i.e., "There is no neutral weatherperson").  As such, a framework of 8 ecological selves and more perspectives allows one to contexualize the claims of the weatherperson from the stance of neutrality to know what the weatherperson or climatologist is or isn't saying from a deeper or wider contextual framework.  While I applaud those efforts and do not dispute that a perspective based on 8 ecological zones is better than fewer perspectives and, furthermore, that an approach is, to some degree, capable of seeing what a climatologist is or isn't saying, I'm not convinced that IMP is a methodology that is capable of falsifiability of an Integralist's claims that what the climatologist is or isn't saying is ultimately valid or true from the standpoint of Integral.  Without such means for falsifiability or verification or proof of its own injunctions, such a methodology as Integral Methodological Pluralism must ultimately give to science what is science, to meditation what is meditation, and to Integral what is Integral (and so on) for these respective claims to be peer-reviewed by other experts within their respective methodologies and disciplines prior to integration into an Integral framework.  This is what Ken Wilber had emphasized in his previous works prior to the concept of IMP. 

Given that IMP isn't in and of itself a methodology that is open to refutation or falsifiability, it must, ultimately--for its own validity as an Integral plural methodology--rely on other methodologies as a foundation and as a means to evaluate the climatologist's claims and the claims of a Zen monk's satori experience (and so on) from their respective disciplines and methodologies prior to their integration into an IMP.  Of course, this is not to say that their claims cannot be evaluated on the basis of other quadrants or domains of truth, but if one doesn't adhere to that principle and uses IMP instead of the scientific method to evaluate scientific claims of what is or isn't being said, for instance, then IMP simply degrades into a curious and paradoxical form of epistemological relativism/superiority whereby "everyone has a perspective which is true in a limited context (even the climatologist's), but mine is better than a specialist because I follow IMP, and am Integral."  And with no way of falsifying that claim one way or the other what without IMP's own methodology for falsifiability, without deference to other methods for falsifiability using expertise from other fields, or without subjecting one's own claims to a community of Integral peers who can review such Integral claims via testing for confirmation and proof of the claims' integrality and truth--it is not a methodology. (When used in that sense, inappropriately).

Needless to say--all perceptions are ultimately context-dependent and holarchichal in nature (including the 8 ecological selves and scientific research based on empirical "facts").  And while true that the conclusions of a weatherperson or climatologist is limited in scope and is confined to right-hand methodologies concerned with observations of data or "facts" (and therefore, non-integral--as it should be), a fact--such as the fact that the freezing point of water is 0 C (32 F)--is agnostic to the weatherman's perspective and doesn't care what Integral thinks, although such a fact is open to refutation by those who present alternative hypotheses and subject them to testing for verification and proof.  That water freezes at 32 F or 0 C is likely to remain a fact nonetheless, based on numerous repetitions and confirmations of this experiment by others. That's why a fact is a fact and not merely an opinion or one person's perspective, and why empirical data is not merely a matter of the weatherman's subjectivity or perspective (e.g., interpretation of data) but is more importantly a matter concerned with facts and data independent of the scientist's opinions or claims.  These claims or hypotheses are presented as fact when independent observers can confirm the validity of such a claim via experimentation, repetition, confirmation, and proof: although interpretation of these data and facts can be one person's perspective (i.e., "There is no neutral weatherperson").  Nevertheless, even then--this interpretation or perspective--though not necessarily a "fact" but an expert opinion instead--can be examined then confirmed or falsified for its neutrality and scientific integrity via peer-review and the scientific method.  IMP doesn't have this, so in and of itself is nonfalsifiable.