Re: MD On Faith

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Oct 17 2004 - 00:21:11 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD On Faith - Improbability ?"

    I suspect that is true David.

    But the "detail" you are interested in seems to be "sceintific detail",
    rather than the "narrative quality" you indicate in your previous "best
    story" post.
    I too am interested in detail, but in most "real world" situations
    scientific detail is close to irrelevant for either explanatory or
    predictive purposes, and useful only for politically correct justification
    and rationalisation.

    A good story is better than inappropriate science or misplaced faith.
    I suspect we agree on that.

    Ian
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:01 PM
    Subject: Re: MD On Faith

    > Hi Ian
    >
    > Don't think we are far apart really as I love my science,
    > but I like to think of myself as more strict than most
    > and more careful to about what has and what has not got
    > evidential back up. I think that Darwinism and quantum theory
    > are both weak theories (in terms of evidence) that prevent us from getting
    > on with
    > good and imaginative research in these areas. The evolutionary metaphor
    > is no doubt essential to understanding, but how it works at different
    levels
    > is rather key to me,
    > as a science student maybe I am a bit more interested in the detail than
    you
    > are.
    > Big sweep is also key though, you need to move from big sweep to detail to
    > test
    > your thinking and always be ready to realise you have been getting it
    wrong.
    >
    > regards
    > DM
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    >
    >
    > > David,
    > >
    > > "Seems (to you) hopelessly unlikely"
    > > But plenty of evidence in millions of words since Darwin.
    > > (DNA is highly overrated as you say.)
    > >
    > > "Life exhibits all kinds of purposive behaviour"
    > > Sure does, that would be an important part of any definition of life for
    > me.
    > > That life exhibits purpose is quite different from any suggestion that
    > there
    > > is a purpose behind the existence of life or that life exists for a
    > purpose.
    > > Lives exist for their purposes.
    > >
    > > (BTW - this is ancient history for me, I'm bored with debates about the
    > > reality of Darwinian biological evolution - yes it's largely untestable
    /
    > > unfalsifiable, and plenty of scope for people to pick arguments with
    > detail
    > > if they're so inclined. But it's a fact of life, that's science for you,
    > get
    > > over it. What I'm intersted in is the evolution metaphor applied to
    > social,
    > > cultural, intellectual life - memetics, complex systems with change and
    > > feedback, much more interesting, and much more amenable to being
    > > pragmatically influenced by our thoughts and actions in the world.)
    > >
    > > What really winds me up though, my Catch-22, is when people of faith
    > indulge
    > > in apparently scientific dialectic / syllogisms to point out lack of
    > > scientific evidence to support a "theory" which might refute their
    faith,
    > > and conclude that their faith must therefore be right. The reason it
    winds
    > > me up is that, without DQ, there are precious few other ways to argue
    > > successfully in this world.
    > >
    > > Ian
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 4:10 PM
    > > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    > >
    > >
    > > > Ian
    > > >
    > > > Not so sure that natural selection does that much for
    > > > me when it comes to explaining biological SQ.
    > > > Sure some SQ is going to get wiped out and be
    > > > unable to reproduce itself. But as an explanation it is
    > > > very dependent on variety to select from. What caues
    > > > variety: little differences or big mutations. To me this is
    > > > opening a crack for DQ and failing to address what is
    > > > really happening in evolution and hiding it under the notion
    > > > of little variations. Seems to me that little variations should
    > > > either make complexity hopelessly unlikely and always breaking
    > > > down, or is not creative enough to be the vital power that
    > > > produces the evolutionary abundance. As the evolutionists know
    > > > there could be no such thing as a blind/intentionless watchmaker
    > > > and that a means for retaining good patterns is required and DNA
    > > > does not really hack it. Life exhibits all kinds of purposive
    behaviour,
    > > > DNA is just one artefact amoung many.
    > > >
    > > > DM
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
    > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:02 PM
    > > > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > David,
    > > > > Agreed - which is why I do indeed criticise Dawkins for being a
    > > hide-bound
    > > > > SOMist.
    > > > > There are neo-Darwinists and there are neo-neo-Darwinists (aka
    > MoQites)
    > > > >
    > > > > It's the scientific wrapping that's wrong, not the essence of the
    > > > Darwinian
    > > > > metaphor, which is in fact infinitely mote interesting beyond
    biology
    > in
    > > > the
    > > > > social / intellectual / cultural realms.
    > > > > Ian
    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 8:10 PM
    > > > > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > Ian
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I cannot imagine a dispute with the reality of evolution,
    > > > > > but you never know, on the other hand,
    > > > > > how anyone who knows of the MOQ,
    > > > > > can consider neo-Darwinist attempts
    > > > > > to tell the story of evolution in pseudo-mechanist
    > > > > > terms, anything other than SOM house-bound and unconvincing
    > > > > > I also find hard to imagine.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > DM
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > > From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
    > > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:25 PM
    > > > > > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > What - I'm no Dawkins fan, but Scott, surely there are still not
    > > > people
    > > > > > > trying to suggest Darwinian evolution is not a credible fit with
    > the
    > > > > > > objective science. I've been round this cycle several times
    > already
    > > > even
    > > > > > in
    > > > > > > my time on this board. Science is great in its place, and
    biology
    > is
    > > a
    > > > > > good
    > > > > > > place for it.
    > > > > > > Ian
    > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > > > From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    > > > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 6:19 AM
    > > > > > > Subject: RE: MD On Faith
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Mark et al,
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > msh says:
    > > > > > > > > Yep. And people who spend a lot of energy downplaying the
    > value
    > > > of
    > > > > > > > > science, math, and logic are to me always suspect. Robert
    > > Duvall,
    > > > > > > > > the great American actor, was once asked what he thought
    about
    > > > movie
    > > > > > > > > critics. He said: "Show me a critic and I'll show you a
    > > > failure."
    > > > > > > > > His meaning is clear, and applies to critics of science,
    math
    > > and
    > > > > > > > > logic. I think it's time to start checking college
    > transcripts.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Couldn't agree more about those who downplay the value of
    > science,
    > > > > math,
    > > > > > > > and logic, but no one in this thread has. Though I think it is
    > > > > > overstated,
    > > > > > > > Platt's point is that scientists also operate within a faith
    > > > > structure.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Dawkins is not defending science so much as promoting
    scientific
    > > > > > > > materialism. Gathering the evidence for evolution is science.
    > > > Claiming
    > > > > > > that
    > > > > > > > evolution has happened solely through chance and natural
    > selection
    > > > is
    > > > > > > > metaphysics.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > - Scott
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > > > > > > Mail Archives:
    > > > > > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > > > > > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > > > > > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > > > > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > > > > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > > > > > Mail Archives:
    > > > > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > > > > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > > > > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > > > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > > > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > > > > Mail Archives:
    > > > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > > > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > > > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > > > >
    > > > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > > > Mail Archives:
    > > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > > >
    > > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > > Mail Archives:
    > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > >
    > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 Oct 17 2004 - 00:23:53 BST