Hi Steve, [Platt] > > Pirsig redefines science as the study of social and intellectual > > patterns of > > value? That's news to me. Can you cite a reference?
[Steve quotes Pirsig] > "If science is a study of substances and their relationships, then the field > of cultural anthropology is a scientific absurdity. In terms of substance > there is no such thing as a culture. It has no mass, no energy. No > scientific laboratory instrument has ever been devised that can distinguish > a culture from a non-culture. > > But if science is a study of stable patterns of value, then cultural > anthropology becomes a supremely scientific field. A culture can be > defined as a network of social patterns of value." [Platt] Most consider anthropology, like psychology and economics, a science. So, Pirsig's "If" clause sets up a straw man. Would Pirsig argue that psychology is a supremely scientific field because it studies stable patterns of intellectual values? I doubt it. Rather than argue for a new science I think Pirsig argues for a new metaphysics. It's proponents of scientism who consider them one and the same. Of course, we can always adopt new meanings for a word like science. After all, Pirsig has liberated the word "morals" from human social behavior. Should we call the MOQ "A Science of Morals?" Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
