Hi Glenn:
> Would you mind expanding on your criticism of the SOM notion of
> "chance" and, as an exercise in intellectual honesty, give the best
> defense of "chance" that you can find, *before* positing the MOQ
> position?
Asking me to defend "chance" before positing the MOQ position is like
asking you to defend creationism before positing the scientific position.
I fail to see the connection to "intellectual honesty," but I'm open to
enlightenment on the subject.
My point about science's faith in chance is simply to suggest that any
worldview contains within it certain unprovable assumptions which must
be accepted on faith, science being no exception. Science asserts that
creation of order occurs by chance, but chance is no hypothesis. It's
outside the limitations of experimental proof. Chance as an explanation
boils down to "I don't know," or as Wilber is fond of saying, "Oops."
I take a rhetorical pot shot at science from time to time to remind
myself and others that science doesn't have all the answers as it
sometimes claims, and that to use its intellectual pattern to dominate
society can only lead to disaster, as history so aptly and amply
demonstrates.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:27 BST