From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 04:27:43 BST
Sam,
I think you're right about the subject matter.
I've just given a longish response in the other thread - I'll come
back to yours in 12 hours or so.
FWIW, I think we have two main topics circulating ...
(1) Belief vs faith - what makes a good one. What makes what is
believed "more true". My battleground here is "quality of
explanation".
(2) When talking about scientific method (but not science) as part of
"evidence" in MoQ circles, we keep confusing the concepts of
"empiricism" and "pre-intellectual experience".
Ian
PS, your obligatory Einstein quote ... note he is delineating
"positive" knowledge from "fantasy" (inspiration / intuition / etc.),
both are part of the knowledge of the physics, and its explanation of
the world.
On 4/19/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I thought this belonged more appropriately in this thread.
>
> I'd be interested in your thoughts (and those of MSH in particular!) on my
> post of 11th April which touched on matters relevant to this, when I did
> some 'groundclearing'. In particular, I asked MSH if he could think of an
> example of science having 'solved' a problem in the third level of the MoQ
> (I'm not saying it hasn't, I just think the question could do with being
> thought about).
>
> A couple of things from your last post:
>
> > I say they most definitely are are in conflict. What I disagree with
> > is your reasoning. Whether or not they are in conflict in "expalining"
> > something, has nothing to do with the detectablity of something by
> > empirical scientific method. I do not buy your suggestion that
> > conflict is avoided because there are somehow two realms in the world,
> > one where scientific explanations apply and one where "faith-based"
> > beliefs apply. No such luck.
>
> If scientific beliefs and religious beliefs are in conflict, then they must
> be doing the same sort of thing, would you agree? If so, how would you
> characterise the sort of thing that they are? Because it seems to me that
> they are very much not the same sort of thing.
>
> > So IF transubstantiation were seriously suggested as part of the real
> > world, science would indeed have something to say about the truth of
> > it, explaining it, etc. Unless a worthwhile test could be proposed
> > (which in this case I suspect it could, it's not that complicated a
> > problem) the empirical testability is only a minor part of the story -
> > you need a hypothesis, an explantion, BEFORE you test it. (And , true
> > or not, explaining why people "believe" it is yet another area to
> > discuss - memetic, I would say.)
>
> So far as I understand it (which may well not be complete)
> transubstantiation asserts a change in the 'substance' beneath the
> 'accidents'. As science can only, as a matter of principle, explore the
> 'accidents' (aka the physical properties of the bread and wine) a) it is
> constitutionally incapable of detecting a change in the substance, and b)
> the religious authorities in the Vatican wouldn't expect there to be a
> scientifically detectable change. I agree with your wider point about
> hypothesis though.
>
> > No way can science stand back and allow it to be said that morality is
> > the realm of religion. That is precisely my point. People arguing from
> > that stance (like yourself ?) have a massive advantage rhetorically
> > over science, since science starts and ends with with doubt.
>
> Which is the problem with science. Doubt needs grounds - and what are the
> grounds from which science proceeds? "If you tried to doubt everything you
> would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself
> presupposes certainty." (Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §115)
>
> > It is not
> > an explanation to start from massively complex real-world outcomes of
> > religious / moral thinking and conclude something is proven one way or
> > another. The lesson science has learned is never to presume such a
> > thing, or develop simply pseudo-scientific logical argumenmt, but it
> > does not prevent science constructing synthetic explanations, from the
> > fundamentals (basics) upwards.
>
> But what are the grounds on which 'science' gets involved in an argument
> about transubstantiation, or, to use a non-religious example, the setting up
> of a bypass around a small town? It seems to me that in so far as there is
> something that can justifiably be called 'science' (and not 'engineering' or
> 'physics' or 'anatomy') it involves what I call the apathistic stance, ie
> the suppression or removal, so far as possible, of all emotional reactions
> to the investigation. But if the emotional reactions are themselves the raw
> material for the investigation (eg in exploring moral and political
> questions) what place does science have?
>
> > Scott, I'm not shy of an argument where there is disagreement - just
> > choosy about not wasting my breath in areas of pointless debate. I'm
> > happy with this battlefield :-)
>
> Cool. I think you've got an interesting point of view (despite your love of
> memes....).
>
> Sam
> "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion
> that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
> positive knowledge." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
>
> 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 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 04:44:49 BST