From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 15:59:11 BST
Hi
I said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
> believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
> experience."
>
> Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
rephrase?
I mean that if you were from another universe and only read science books
you would have very little idea what a human being was like.
I am probably mainly concerned with the populist neo-Darwinist presentation
of
speculation as informed by science. It is not what I call science. I think
a lot of people are very mislead by them. Whan I said it is annyoing, I
meant it is annoying for
neo-Darwinists that they can only discuss important aspects of human
existence via
speculation, I think the nature of these speculations make Darwinism
less-reputable
than it might otherwise be. And once again, its a theory, it is not very
convincing, and
a lot of research is done in a Darwinian framework only because no one has
come up
with a better idea. We constantly get fed the aspects of Darwinism that are
plausible,
although not on this excellent site, a more rounded view would also discuss
its limitations.
You're a fan, I'm not. It is also very important to put science in its SOM
context. It is SOM
based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the
characteristics split off from reality
and dumped into the subject. There are other approaches to reality, MOQ
being a broader
one than SOM. Above all I think SOM is derived from a fear of
Becoming/contingency that
is built up by theistic thinking and the idea of God as the master of
contingency, that is taken up
in the notion of the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism
without the subject, that produces
scientific materism, that is a view of reality with one of your eyes shut.
There's a potted history of
2,500 years of thought for you.
DM
science claims
>
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> Hi David,
>
> Ok. So for the most part we agree. But I still want to quibble with you.
>
> You said: "The 'annoying ' reference is that it is annoying that Darwinism
> is the best theory we have in orthodox science, that we want
> to discuss the way evolution effects life but we are stuck with
> an inadequate theory when we try to do so."
>
> Andy: Well, You want to do some things and biologists want to do other
things.
> I don't have any attachment to Darwinism, I just don't understand why
everyone
> gets so emotional about it. Pick any theory in science and we can work
around
> the edges looking for faults. In fact this is the role of science. I
don't see
> how Darwinism or evolution is any different from relativity, QUantum
mechanics,
> or any theory you want to choose. None of them are airtight, none of them
> answer the specific question you want answered, so all of them can be
described
> as inadequate by some perspective. WHy is everyone so wigged out about
> Darwinism? I want to suggest that it is not Darwinism that is the
source of
> your annoyance, but rather the annoyance resides in you. Charles Bukowski
says,
> "Only the boring get bored." Could we also say, "Only the annoying get
> annoyed." I am not calling you annoying, I am saying you have misplaced
the
> source for your annoyance.
>
> You said: "The problem I suspect is that we are prepared to talk about
human
> beings acting with purpose but for metaphysical reasons we do not seem to
think
> that purpose plays a role anywhere else in nature."
>
> Andy: Purpose in nature to me sounds too much like design. That might be
my
> problem. But, I just don't know how there can be a purpose in nature
without
> going outside nature. To some ultimate view. ANd I don't want to do
that.
> That seems like a much bigger problem.
>
> You said: "The point about Sheldrake is that he proposes a way in which
we can
> begin to see how purpose and dynamic driven reality might find its way
into
> laying down static patterns in a way more likely to produce evolution than
the
> information passed in genes."
>
> Andy: I found Sheldrake fascinating when I read his work. I have his
book.
> But I was waiting for biologists to also find his work exciting. Perhaps
his
> day is yet to come. But so far biologist have not found his ideas very
useful.
> In fact, they seem to have systematically refuted his every point. I
think
> philosophers find Sheldrake more interesting than Darwin. But what should
this
> say about philosophers?
>
> You said: "Genes according to neo-Darwiniam orthodoxy do not record
information
> from the environment in any direct way, they only mutate randomly and then
pass
> on those genes that happen to survive."
>
> Andy: Genes do much more than this from my understanding. I think both of
us
> have a very superficial understanding of how genes, mutations and natural
> selection works. But, biologists, obviously find neo-Darwinism very
useful for
> the work they do. This is a strong enough endorsement for the orthodoxy
for me.
> Why should philosophers and historians of science dictate what theory
> biologists should use because we are confused by the non-biological
questions we
> are asking?
>
> You said: "Sheldrake asks if there is a mechanism for passing on
onformation
> form one generation to the next about the structure of the organism at a
higher
> level than genes."
>
> Andy: And Sheldrake should be commended for asking that question.
>
> You said: "At the present time it is not possible to answer this question
due to
> our limited understanding of ontogenesis and morphogenesis."
>
> Andy: Are you sure about this? And if you are, what does this mean to
> biologists and the work they are doing? Does this throw a kink in their
work?
> Is it going to cause the whole Darwinist world view to come crashing down?
I
> really don't think so. Darwinism has weathered much stronger criticisms
and
> attacks than this over its century and a half existence. Like I said, I
think
> the most amazing aspect of Darwinism is how many of Charles Darwin's
original
> ideas have managed to remain intact through all the years of criticisms.
> Particularly when it seems he was just going upon conjecture without
having the
> evidence of genes, dna, or everything we have subsequently found in the
fossil
> records. You want to talk about wasps being amazing, and I agree, but I
find
> this pretty damn amazing too.
>
> You said: "PS I do not use the word truth, I prefer to ask plauisible
> explanation, and a lot of the problem I have with science (apart from
loving it)
> is that it is always talking as if closure is around the corner,"
>
> Andy: I agree that this is a problem when some scienctists talk like
this.
> However, I don't think all scientists talk like this. I am not even sure
if a
> majority of them do.
>
> You said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
> believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
> experience."
>
> Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
rephrase?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> 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 Sep 07 2003 - 16:02:55 BST