Hi 3WD. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
I said the morals the physicists can't detect are the dynamic kind.
Obviously, as you point out, the static kind is the kind detected by
their instruments.
So I stand by what I said:
- Scientists can't say Morals (DQ) are real at the atomic level.
- Scientists can't say with any scientific authority that static inorganic
patterns of value are moral because all they've done is labelled these
things with morally sounding names and behaviors.
You can have a scientist get on TV and tell the public that the basic
stuff of the universe is moral, but he/she says so with the authority
of a preacher, not a scientist.
Having said that, I think if you can do the renaming convincingly you'll
have a good chance of converting people to this way of thinking. But it
doesn't look promising. I mean, you can only say "prefers" so many times
before it starts sounding hackneyed. Velocity is a "static pattern of
<what>"? How do you make a "derivative of a function" sound moral? The
task is daunting.
There's at least one more problem. Since scientists can't say DQ is real
at the atomic level, they can't substantiate that static inorganic
patterns of value spring up from DQ, as MOQ claims it does.
Glenn
> Glenn
> > The dials must detect it. MOQ, which is based on empiricism, demands this as
> > well. Trouble is, according to MOQ, morals (DQ) are undefinable - they're
> > not any kind of thing that can be detected by an instrument.
>
> 3WD
> The MoQ is based on "radical" empiricism and while it does says that
> Dynamic Quality and Quality are undefinable (but knowable) to say that
> it does not "define" values or morals is quite a stretch. And if your
> saying that the MoQ says values or morals are, "not any kind of thing
> that can be detected by an instrument" your just plain wrong. In his
> causation discussion ( "A values precondition B") he says just the
> opposite. That values ( organic or inorganic) is exactly what all
> scientific instruments are detecting.
3WD
> And to further confuse, these
> "detected" or "observed" organic and inorganic values are inexorably
> intertwined with the social and intellectual values, morals, or laws of
> the observer however much science would like this not to be.
Yes, but the morals at the lower levels are "inexorably intertwined" with the morals at the upper levels because you believe them to be,
not because of any empirical evidence. I'm not saying you said otherwise,
but let's be clear on this. You believe this simply because you like the
idea.
>
> So yes as you suggests, at the level of scientific values this seem to
> be just a "renaming", but it is powerful for same reason that converting
> fractions to a common denominator in mathematic is. It allows us to
> integrate, however clumsily, into the "scientific formulas" values
> from the social and intellectual levels which have been there all along
> but had previously had been discounted as having little or no affect on
> the observations, conclusions, and the subsequent choices and decisions.
----------
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST