Hi Platt,
> PLATT
> My grandchildren have departed after a month’s visit which
> necessitated my temporary absence from the ongoing discussion.
I'm in complete agreement with your decision. Though it must have
been tough to choose the morally incorrect position, considering MOQ
puts intellectual patterns (philosophical discussion) above social
ones (visiting grandchildren).
> PLATT
> Even though I don’t intend to intervene at this point I can’t resist
> reminding Glenn that the belief held by science that truth is what is
> verifiable empirically cannot itself be verified empirically, leaving
> room for other equally “true” interpretations of reality based on
> equally unprovable assumptions, such as Pirsig’s theory of
> competing moral levels.
This criticism of science can also be levelled against MOQ, because what
MOQ calls real is *also* what is empirically verifiable.
Saying "what is verifiable empirically cannot itself be verified
empirically" is a clever way to undermine empiricism, but is this really
your intent? And I don't agree what you have left room for are equally
true interpretations of reality. You've basically left the door open for
anything and reality becomes just 'what you like'. Do you believe it's
possible to have personalized realities? How can they be all "equally
true" if my version of reality conflicts with yours?
> PLATT
> Or to put it directly, science, like all worldviews, is ultimately based
> on faith.
True, but this doesn't mean all worldviews require equal amounts of faith.
In my view, deciding what's real should be determined by rationality and
concensus as much as possible, minimizing faith. I'd be cautious. I
wouldn't be too quick to make interpretations of mental experiences unless
the interpretations could be justified and the experiences were widely
held, even ones that subjectively feel "right". For example, I believe
numbers are real but I'd stop short at saying there's a mathematical
world, even though I like numbers a lot.
> PLATT
> Which leads me to speculate that not only is their a material world
> “out there” for us to explore and contemplate (with science at the
> forefront), but also a mathematical world, a moral world and
> indeed an aesthetic world, each one as “real” as the other.
For each case above, is your use of "world" figurative or actual? If
actual, what are the salient features of a world? If I were to propose a
world to add to your list of many worlds (say, cartoon world), what
would be your criteria for accepting or rejecting it?
Glenn
----------
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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