Jon,
In your first post you explained why Pirsig was expelled from college:
"It's all the result of [Pirsig's] problems with
the scientific method. That's where it all started.
All of it."
Roger responded by saying that it's really not the fault of the
method but people's over-extended expectations about the method's
applicability outside the objective realm. To this you replied:
"Pirsig's problem has never been science or even the
scientific method."
Either Pirsig has a problem with the scientific method or he
doesn't. Let me see if I can capture the thread of your argument:
It is the scientific method to blame for moral decay
It's not the scientific method to blame.
It's not really scientists to blame.
It's not even science to blame.
It's the comfort of technology to blame.
It's a trickle down of objectivism to blame.
Essentially it's our old nemesis, SOM, to blame.
Well I said it then and I'll say it again: it always comes back to
science. And here we are again. You end up admitting that none of these
things about science are to blame, but let a few months go by and we're
at square one again.
What you started out with was a very pointed argument denouncing the sci
method but what you end up with is something very vague, a trickle as you
say. It sounds like you are trying to prove something like Reagonomics.
It's all a telltale sign of a weak premise.
Deep down perhaps your argument really translates into this:
Something I don't like must be responsible for moral decay.
I don't like science.
Therefore science is responsible for moral decay.
Is it fair to say that science isn't your favorite thing?
My own scepticisms of science (and there are many) pale next to yours:
"I still want someone to explain to me how science can be the most
respected
authority when it comes to the "search for truth" despite one of the tenets
of science being there IS no absolute truth. According to science there is
not one 100% proven airtight fact in existence. Not a single one. That's a
bit disconcerting considering we're supposed to look for science to find
truth."
Logic, math, and at least the hard sciences actually get you somewhere.
For example, the Earth, as well as all the planets and our sun, are round
(not
flat and not supported by the shells of an infinite stack of turtles). The
heart pumps blood through your body (it is not the seat of emotions).
Even Platt, who feels much the way you do, is compelled to read math and
science because only these disciplines have the power to prove their own
limitations (which he is so fond to point out), and no doubt he is on the
alert for scientific results that might throw his metaphysical beliefs into
question or even boost them. Science offers us the only solid footing we have.
As Roger said in a post a month or so ago, MOQ must be at least consistent
with accepted branches of science. Where there is disagreement, science is
not
in trouble - MOQ is.
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 - 16:00:57 BST