Ian,
How is one suppose to act on information created by science when it
cannot be experienced and is market-driven? Trust?
Marsha
At 06:34 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha, thanks ... I'd not heard the label used.
(Kuhn is behind a lot of the Nick Maxwell work I've been looking at lately.)
My reference to bad science is the kind of science that believes its
access to truth is somehow privelidged because of its so-called
"objective" methods - the kind that deserved the backlash. A science
that recognizes its limitations is in that sense "better".
Regards
Ian
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 02:17 AM 4/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>> Ian:
>> Marsha (I've not been concentrating for a few weeks) what explicitly
>> did you mean by the reference "science wars" in the 1990's ? My
>> starting point (before the turn of the millennium) was that the
>> "scientific" view had become too dominant in all walks of life - a
>> thoughtless and all-too-easy knee-jerk instead of quality thinking.
>> (But here scientific is "bad science" - over-simplified science for
>> the mass media and social and other pseudo-sciences.) I see the "faith
>> wars" of recent times as a backlash to this bad science of the last
>> two or three generations - since Copenhagen.
>
> Greetings Ian:
>
> Starting in the 1990s sociologists, anthropologists, historians and
> intellectuals of all stripes started to evaluate the knowledge and methods
> of science. Science's objectivity, neutrality, and explanations were found
> to be myth-laden. There was, of course, a conservative backlash, with the
> conflict being labeled the 'Science Wars'. It wasn't just good science
> versus bad science, it's the age-old crisis of what constitutes truth and
> knowledge severely damaging Science's privileged tower. Supposedly the
> challenge started with the book 'The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions' by
> Thomas S. Kuhn.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > [Willblake2]
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Let me first say that I carry the burden of scientific
>> >> training, Ph.D. and all. That means full indoctrination.
>> >>
>> >> I read, below, scientific facts thrown about as though they
>> >> were truths. The earth is 5 billion years old! Did you measure
>> >> this, or are you parroting somebody's opinion? Oh, it has
>> >> been proven. Please explain to me that proof. Is it all based on
>> >> assumptions? Science is a convention, that seems to provide
>> >> some predictability to our lives. That predictability comes true
>> >> simply because the cause and effect are supporting each other,
>> >> like a closed logical circle, no other reason. 1 + 1= 2. What does
>> >> that mean? Absolutely nothing more than a convention. Neuronal
>> >> firings that are shared amongst people. The more people that
>> >> have similar neuronal firings (or patterns), the more meaningful
>> >> it seems to be. Why? Because we like company.
>> >>
>> >> It is my opinion that science describes that which is considered
>> >> outside of us; this includes the brain as described by science.
>> >> Spirituality describes that which is within ourselves. It is my belief
>> >> that which is within is much greater than what is outside. (It could
>> >> also
>> >> be said that the world we create is within (and I don't mean within
>> >> the brain)). The "rules" for describing spirituality are very
>> >> different
>> >> from the rules of science. There is no cause-effect. If we could
>> >> transmit
>> >> feelings directly (no thoughts or words in between) it would be
>> >> much easier to convey spirituality. Instead we are left with
>> >> the scientific (logical) tool of language.
>> >>
>> >> Science has sacrificed that within for that outside. For every
>> >> word concerning experience in English, there are forty in Sanskrit. It
>> >> is
>> >> because of this obsession with that which is outside, that we
>> >> find no real meaning or satisfaction or truth. How could there be?
>> >> Science has taken much away. There is no balance.
>> >>
>> >> It seems that the more detailed we make this outside, the more
>> >> dominant it becomes, until it is all. What an illusion!
>> >>
>> >> The real war is between that which is within, and that which is outside
>> >> (without).
>> >>
>> >> I think this has something to do with MoQ...
>> >>
>> >> Willblake2
>> >
>> > I'm with you Willblake2. The cosmos exhibits an inner will to be better.
>> > That's the message of the MoQ.
>> >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> 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/
>
> .
> _____________
>
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
> .
> .
> 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/
>
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
