Platt said: I guess Ken Wilber also draws a cartoonish picture of science when he "describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions)." (Wiki-Ken Wilber) That's what I had in mind in criticizing how science generally portrays evolution as a series of increasingly complex exterior physical attributes while largely ignoring the inner expansion of conscious awareness. There are exceptions of course, as you rightfully cite. But, they necessarily come from the "soft" sciences of psychology, sociology and Pirsig's favorite whipping boy, anthropology.
dmb says: Wilber's complaint about the hard and narrow sciences, with physics being the prime example, is more or less the same as Pirsig's complaint about scientific objectivity or scientific materialism. Likewise, Wilber's complaint about the limits of the five senses and their extensions is more or less the same as Pirsig's complaint about the limits of traditional sensory empiricism. And there is a kind of materialistic reductionism that sometimes infects the softer sciences like psychology, where consciousness is equated with brain functions or stimulus and response behaviorism. I suppose advocates of that sort of thing see it as a move to make the soft sciences "harder". But I think that all this accomplishes is to oversimplify a thing that's highly complex. As I see it, the difference between physics and psychology is not that one is hard and one is soft. Physics is clean and clear and given to simple equations and while the social sciences are studying something infinitely rich and highly elusive. In a way it's far more difficult than rocket science or brain surgery. In Jungian psychology, for example, they say there are as many archetypes in the unconscious as there are fish in the Ocean and if that's not enough, each of them can be expressed in many different ways. As I see it, Wilber and Pirsig both reject reductionistic science but they both want to expand what counts as empirical evidence so as to include things like psychological experience or inner events. They both want to IMPROVE science, not denigrate it or make war on it. All this goes along with the quest for a rational spirituality. I mean, its a bit subtle. We're talking about two guys who reject theism in favor of naturalistic mysticism and who reject scientific materialism but not the premise that knowledge is derived from experience and that knowledge has to be tested in experience. In this view, even the mysticism is empirically based and in that sense even the religion is scientific. Or something like that. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 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/
