From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 21:38:26 GMT
Hi Matt
I can kind of see where you're coming from regarding contextualism but I think that for
what you say to be true then the implication is that scientism (non-pejorative meaning)
must be a very fragile structure.
If we accept Glenns definition of 'belittle' as "lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation
of" then surely any criticism of science (as a discpline) does this. This, for me, does a
huge dsservice to both science and scientists both of whom I have immense respect for.
I think this isolationist attitude and model of insecurity may be the kind of science Pirsig
objects to and in criticizing science as he does Pirsig is doing both mainstream science
(and scientists) a favour.
I think though that this follows on from the general positivist idea that if it can't be
measured and can't be expressed mathematically then it doesn't exist (my interpretation
of logical positivism). On a happier note though positivism/scientism does appear to be
losing much of it's appeal because for most people it has very little to say and attempts
to degrade many activities which most hold in high regard as meaningless. Philosophy,
art, music, etc.
Horse
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 21:35:55 GMT