On Friday 24 April 2009 7:56 AM Krimel writes: [Krimel] For the umpteenth time I have to say that what makes us all uneasy about science is its sheer dynamic quality. In the past century the pace of change wrought by science was so rapid and so full of unintended consequences that many are rightly fearful of the consequences. You are quite correct to note that we are, "Always wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects." But I suspect that is as true of primitive as of modern man. It is the scale and proliferation of objects in the modern world that turns quantitative changes into qualitative ones. I would and have argued that much of the fault for all of this can be laid at the feet of philosophers, theologians and politicians who have not been able to evolve new systems of governance, value and morality to keep pace with revolutions in technology. But in the end that is all just finger pointing. The fact is that we are in a positive feedback loop with regard to the growth of knowledge and it is the simple lack of static latching that threatens our survival. Krimel
Hi Krimel and all, [Joe] As I read the above I have no idea of the metaphysical implications. In SOM the division of everything is into substance and nine accidents. The first two accidents are Quality and Quantity. In MOQ there is only DQ undefined and SQ defined Quality. Substance and accidents are merely descriptive metaphors in MOQ. [Joe] I feel the uneasiness about science is the lack of metaphysical specifics. In SOM mathematics cannot be applied to Quality only to Quantity. Modern Science rejects SOM and proclaims that it has metaphysical status with a mathematical language. Hopefully on a MOQ discussion list, some attempt will be made to discuss the language of mathematics, Quantity, in terms of Quality as Krimel has suggested. Or maybe such a discussion is doomed from a lack of specifics. Joe On 4/24/09 7:56 AM, "Krimel" <[email protected]> wrote: > Willblake2, > > Nicely said, in fact much of what you say made me wish I had said it. You > called to mind all the times I have said something similar but not as well. > One of my ongoing themes has been that the scientific method consists of > three steps: Check it out, Mess with it and See what happens. All else is > elaboration and commentary. As you point out science is not some alien > obscure method of gnosis, it is ingrained in our everyday approach to the > world. It is the methodology of children learning to interact with the world > and people around them. > > I agree that science is an illusion in sense of a particular way of > synthesizing and organizing perception. It is not "false" or a dream it is > just a particular way of seeing and as such should be judged in comparison > to other ways of seeing. My point has long been that while science is > certainly not the only way of seeing, it does set limits on other ways of > seeing. In the conflicts between science and religion in the west, from the > heliocentric model of the solar system to Darwin, religion is ultimately > forced to alter dogma that runs counter to scientific evidence. > > You offer up a key phrase that I would really like to highlight, "The more > useful these structures are, the more they are used." This really gets to > the heart it. As a structure is used and reused it is strengthened. It > grows. We see this in our muscle cells, we see it in the flow of rivers, in > the trunks of tree, in paths that become roads which get paved and then > widened. This is the essence of how networks with their fractal structure > form and grow. I think this is what Pirsig is pointing to with "betterness." > While his focus on value, I fear leads to mushy thinking, "usefulness" > focuses on function and points to how static structures arise and grow as a > result of the flow of dynamic forces. This is critical to biology and the > precursors of it are easily identified in the inorganic world as well. It is > seen as self similarity across scale. It is the basis of both hierarchical > and networked models not only of organic growth but of cognitive and > semantic organizational systems as well. Pirsig's riff on random access and > his technique for organizing slips of paper into trays can be summarized as, > "The more > useful these structures are, the more they are used." All I could add to > that is that out of the "trunks" of well used structures, grow twigs and > branches which sprout into infinite detail. This is a point Pirsig sadly > misses with his claim that science collapses because of the infinite > formation of hypotheses. > > You also emphasize that science is measurement. To that I would add that > measurement is an intellectual tool that greatly expands our innate > abilities. We all have innate abilities to estimate space, time and > probability but the ability to quantify and specify has led to vast > increases in our ability to predict and control the world around us. The > Greek philosophical revolution was largely the result of increased mastery > of spatial relationships. The post Newtonian revolution was greatly aided > and abetted by more precise time pieces and in the modern era formal > techniques for specifying probability are changing the world yet again. > > When you say basically that science is a way of making our desires come > true, that really is it. Science allows us to turn concepts into precepts. > Those ghostly ideas are given shape and form, structure and function. > Fantasy becomes reality. Star Trek communicators become cell phones. This is > a point made by William James. He says the concepts are purely derived from > percepts but that they constantly interact. Concepts or idea heavily > influence our understanding of the world, so much so that were mold reality > to become our concepts. Baudrillard takes this so far as to say that > concepts are becoming more real than the "merely" real. Our conceptual > structures have become so powerful that he speaks of the hyperreal. > > For the umpteenth time I have to say that what makes us all uneasy about > science is its sheer dynamic quality. In the past century the pace of change > wrought by science was so rapid and so full of unintended consequences that > many are rightly fearful of the consequences. You are quite correct to note > that we are, "Always > wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects." But I > suspect that is as true of primitive as of modern man. It is the scale and > proliferation of objects in the modern world that turns quantitative changes > into qualitative ones. > > I would and have argued that much of the fault for all of this can be laid > at the feet of philosophers, theologians and politicians who have not been > able to evolve new systems of governance, value and morality to keep pace > with revolutions in technology. But in the end that is all just finger > pointing. The fact is that we are in a positive feedback loop with regard to > the growth of knowledge and it is the simple lack of static latching that > threatens our survival. > > Krimel > > > __________________________________________________ > > Hi Marsha, > > Scientific knowledge? > > In our world today, scientific knowledge encompasses all forms of > measurement using numbers. 50 cattle in a herd is scientific. "He > is twice as handsome as I" is not scientific. However, numbers are > a concept, an illusion. So it could be said that science is illusion. > I would agree with this, but I don't want to get into a semantic war. > > Scientific knowledge builds in the same way as philosophical > knowledge. Assumptions are made, typically based on observation. > These assumptions are then built up as knowledge. The more > useful these structures are, the more they are used. Science is > passed along through the virus of words. > > Perhaps scientific knowledge is an interpretation of reality. But, > it is not reality, just like the description of a cow is not a cow. > > Science, that is measurement, is used in a variety of ways, the science > of economics, the science of religion, the science of philosophy. But, in > the same way, the perspective can be changed to say: the economics > of science, the religion of science, and the philosophy of science. > The religion of science would be a good way to characterize the > 21st century. And like any religion, it is hard to describe alternatives > to the believers. > > I do not believe that science is necessarily an institution, but is a way > of thought. I personally believe that there are many more things that > can't be measured (ever) than can be measured. So science has a > limited use in our experience. I believe you are rebelling against the > domination of scientific (measurement base) thought, and I agree with you > there. > > We are not funding science, we are funding the promises of science, > which means we are funding our desires. I agree with you that our > desires are misplaced, but I feel that is the nature of man. Always > wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects. > > Because science now requires specialization, it has become a foreign > endeavor. But it is basic humans doing it, like you and me. Trust? > Trust comes from within, it is not something that is given to you. > > Cheers, > > Willblake2 > > 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/
