Hi Krim
[Krimel]
I think science while not necessarily unique in its approach to truth is
better equipped and more successful for many reasons.
DM: I was hoping you might try talking about these.
I here Rorty and
Dennett discussing this in a radio interview and Rorty was claiming the
English common law was on a par with the unraveling of the human genenom.
I
suppose they are both magnificent achievements but I still think there is
a
qualitative difference in the precision and lack of ambiguity of science.
DM: Rorty has a point, and precision and lack of ambiguity is sometimes
good and sometimes it would be misplaced, why worship it scientism boy?
Do you hanker after worship and bending the knee?How odd.
[Krimel]
First I think you are exaggerating the nature of scientific disagreements.
DM: Not from what I've read.
While scientists may disagree over specifics in their field they do tend
to
agree on how those disputes can and should be settled. Kuhn
notwithstanding,
they do not cling to their beliefs indefinitely for personal reasons.
DM: Never heard of funding, career and tenure pressures.
As
Kuhn points out they do cling to false beliefs; but I think this is in
some
measure testimony to the degree of understanding it takes to hold a
scientific belief in the first place.
DM: It's natural to have commitments, I suggest we need to admit
this and no talk up some fake special objectivity. That is not to say there
is none.
Your second point about quantitative measures is also misplaced. One might
suggest that if you want to study something but can not think of a way to
measure it perhaps it doesn't exist at all or is not worth studying. I
just
went though a lot of trouble to show Platt how morality can and has been
studied.
DM: I have no problem with that, my point is that being precise and
without ambiguity is not always possible or good or good method.
So not missing from or exclusive to science.Science is useful, etc, but
let's
not make it an idol.
I would have mentioned to Platt, had his reply be a bit more thoughtful,
that the social sciences actually do devote a great deal of time to the
study of individuals and unique situations.
DM: Sure and many would say this is not really science, depends where
you want to draw the line, if the line is vague there is clearly no special
method, you can't have cake and eat it you know.
You sound like Platt, getting all in a huff because science won't tell you
why you should live.
DM: Precisely the opposite, I will be happy if it is precisely clear to us
all that science cannot do this, and that science is about understanding
what is possible and how we can make things possible, and so do many
other forms of knowledge, and art and perhaps religion allow us to
consider the impossible too.
It's like getting pissed at a hammer because it won't
saw a board.
DM: As usual you want to argue with someone saying something in your
head and not with me. Very odd behaviour,have you considered analysis?
Science provides us with facts. It can not tell us what is
"right" or "good" but it can tell us about the consequences of our beliefs
about what is "right" and "good". It can not tell us what we "ought" to do
but it can tell us what we actually do and what the consequences of our
doing are. Never have I suggested that art, religion or other modes of
thinking are not worthwhile
DM: So far so good.
but I do insist that in some sense science is
king of the hill and that artistic and religious beliefs that run counter
to
science can not long endure. Those other modes of expression when they are
in harmony with science or are irrelevant to science add greatly to the
human experience. When they run counter to it they are both destructive
and
meaningless.
DM: And this is the crap I disagree with. The relationship is dialectical
between
all forms of knowledge read some intellectual history for a change instead
of
too much pop science and sci-fi. Sure people get stuck and stop talking and
listening,but guess what dummy: scientists, artists, popes can all make that
mistake.
Apart from the crap, nice talking to you as usual. And I know I am being
hyper-critical
but you're worth it I think!
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/
