Hi David M, You make many excellent points in this post. Keep up the good work.
Platt > 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/ > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
