Mark Peaty wrote:
> History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to 
> ensure that it doesn't.
> If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a 
> moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis 
> of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am 
> wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, 

What assertion? That history has not finished yet?  I certainly wouldn't 
disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't.

> of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an 
> opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. 
> "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied 
> by respect.
> The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. 
> Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, 
> Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, 
> certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what 
> were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of 
> sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and 
> unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for 
> most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as 
> things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, 
> superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the 
> champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have 
> time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up..

You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery and 
tyranny and racism.  Would that it were so.  Perhaps the scientific method can 
be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically 
the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, Nazism, and 
Communism, as well as liberal democracy.  One can point to those political 
movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated their faults, 
but that's not much help in shaping the future.

I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate.  The 
opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a conspiracy 
to justify a world  government with totalitarian powers.  They weren't against 
science, but they feared an authoritarian government.

Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that 
given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on minorities 
in the most draconian fashion.  So it is not only democracy that is needed, but 
*liberal* democracy, democracy that preserves individual autonomy and values.  
The problem is how to inculcate a scientific attitude of tolerance for 
disagreement and uncertanity in people.

Brent Meeker

> The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is 
> not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true 
> human strength;
> ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
> Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success 
> of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government 
> and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they 
> are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't 
> really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its 
> necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia;
> the application of scientific method is transforming the human 
> species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile 
> grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, 
> following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the 
> further application of the method, and so it will ever be.
> Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not 
> trivial, and it is not going to go away.
> Regards
> Mark Peaty  CDES
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.
>> Quentin
>> 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method
>>> These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.
>>> Regards
>>> Mark Peaty  CDES
>>> David Nyman wrote:
>>>> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
>>>>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
>>>>> relationships entail existence and difference.
>>>> I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
>>>> whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
>>>> a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
>>>> suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
>>>> usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.
>>>>> Particles of matter are knots,
>>>>> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
>>>>> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
>>>>> whatever other structural/topological features occur.
>>>> Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno
>>>> has had something to say about this in the past.
>>>>> If an
>>>>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>>>>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>>>> Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
>>>> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
>>>> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
>>>> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
>>>> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
>>>> PS - Mark, what is CDES?
> > 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to