Kieffer,
When billions of dollars are spent to build a machine and setup an
experiment to prove the existence of, let's say, the Higgs boson, it
should be acknowledged that there are a whole lot of assumptions
built into the method of testing. It is often the case that the
answer reached is, more or less, guaranteed by the questions being
asked and the method used. I heard of a test at Fermilab where out
of approximately15 million testing events,1/2 dozen seemed to be
proof of "top quark". How much money, prestige and current theories
involved were dependent on this test and results? I'm sorry, but
this seems more like celebrity poker than an objective, neutral
science experiment. With the public, science still has an
unquestioned, privileged position that maybe it just doesn't
deserve. While you seem to already have clear opinions about
science, my mind is far from made up. I am especially concerned when
science, as a powerful system and institution, participates in
genetically modifying food, and for the corporations that are
providing funding. Is this what genetic biologists should be
doing? From the mystics point-of-view it may not matter much, but
from philosophy's point-of-view and a grandmother's point-of-view,
the questions should be asked and answers considered.
Marsha
At 05:39 AM 4/23/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha,
2009/4/22 MarshaV <[email protected]>
> At 06:35 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > There is no true me. (T)ruth is the discovery that I am false. Yes?
>> >
>>
>> you are a pattern of value - and you said all patterns are true - are you
>> eating your words now?
>>
>
> Greetings KO,
>
> It is a matter of conventionally true and Absolutely True. Conventionally,
> I am (boringly) an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
> interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
> patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. That would be the
> uncapitalized version of true. (T)rue with a capitalized 'T' is that the
> _independent (inherent) existence_ of such a self is false because it has
> dependent origination and is a conceptual construct. The
'self's' existence
> is dependent on thought. There is no contradiction, but I may be very poor
> at explaining.
>
I get the gist of what you are saying but still think, as we have been over
before, that use of the word 'true' here does seems inappropriate to me; i
suppose i am used to the logical meanings of true and false - you know like
:
All men are mortal; Socrates is a man therefor Socrates is mortal.
Also the idea of truth in whether a person is disguising their real
intentions. I can dig that a cat has buddha nature but not that a cat is
true.
I just want it to be understood clearly,neutrinos and oxytocin aside, that
> > Science has investigated and studied how to manufacture desire,
> manufacture
> > the "wanting", public manipulation; advertising and propaganda, baloney
> and
> > garbage, are the child of Science too.
> >
> > For a metaphysics that is suppose to be grounded in Radical Empiricism
> and
> > Pragmaticism, how is one suppose to act on information created by Science
> > when it cannot be experienced and is profit-driven? Trust? Is this an
> > unimportant question? Maybe this should be answered by those who want to
> > say that Scientific patterns are more than just conceptual constructs.
> What
> > does Science know, and how does it know it?
> >
Again, i think that what you have said above is down to some of the
dishonest people using science - not science itself. As i see it science is
the attempt to accurately model observed phenomena with the aim of
prediction.
Science uses many methods having the similar problem of 'affirming the
> antecedent'.
Affirming the antecedent is valid only if the original propositions are
true. Science is dynamic because with more observation we see that some of
the original propositions have exceptions and can be refined.
> I know, I've heard all that rigamarole about simplicity, elegance and
> beauty, but that's just a human value, a conventional prejudice. The better
> answer may be complicated and messy, or seem complicated and mess
because of
> our lack of better understanding.
The elegance and beauty is part of nature and observations show that nature
is parsimonious.
Science did not invent gravity - but science makes gravity more useful
> since
> we understand better how it behaves
>
Which gravity, Newton's or Einstein's? Gravity, in either case, is just a
> useful conceptual construct, abstract patterns of value. There is no such
> independent thing. If you think it is something else, please explain what
> it is.
People recognised the tendency of things to fall to the earth long before
Newton put numbers to it. When a cat plays with a mouse, batting it about
with its paws, it instinctively knows that the mouse will fall down again.
Before humans existed apples still fell to the earth.
-KO
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/
