Hello Platt, I would add, and should have, that while Science cannot answer "Why" questions, religion, equally, cannot answer "How" questions. Neither is comprehensive.
Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting Hi Mary, Superb post -- clear, succinct and correct. Thanks for sharing an astute realization. . Regards, Platt. On 24 Jan 2010 at 14:31, Mary wrote: > Hello Krimel, Mar, X Acto, Marsha, and all in this thread, > > I would like to revisit something brought up last Thursday in this thread > (apologies for running behind, but I've read all the follow up since, and > don't see this addressed). Objections have been made to Pirsig's Baggini > interview, and particularly the quote below: > > BAGGINI: > One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic > resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often > deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. > > For example, at one point you say "[The theory of evolution] goes into many > volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question > of why." (p144) > > Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if > you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by > the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be > that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the > question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you > present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't > complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it > on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments > that justify the claims. > > PIRSIG: > That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus > cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my > question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do > not understand the difference between "how" and "why." The answers they give > for "why" are usually "competitive advantage" or "survival of the fittest." > But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms. > "Fittest" is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific > observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of > "advantage." Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the > theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of > these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up > or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually > toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality. > ----- > > I think Pirsig is very clear here. The point he makes is that science is > pretty good at figuring out the "how", but is clueless about figuring out > the "why". There IS a huge difference between the two questions. That > Pirsig gets some scientific particulars wrong in Lila is not the point at > all, and focusing on that is irrelevant to the discussion. Scientific > particulars will change daily. Mark pointed that out, quite correctly. The > thing is, science is not setup properly to answer the "whys". It cannot do > it and never will. This is Pirsig's point. The metaphysical underpinning > for all of science is lacking the ability to do so. SOM LACKS THE ABILITY > TO ANSWER THE "WHYS". If you base your world-view on SOM, then value is > just "whatever you like". It has no solid meaning and cannot be measured in > a laboratory. To try to use science to answer "why" will, if taken to its > logical conclusion, result in his last sentence: "he will find himself > drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of > Quality." > > You can debate endlessly the nature of entropy, but matter and energy are > manifestations of the same thing, and cannot be created nor destroyed. > Entropy is merely the turning of free energy into bound matter. But the > energy is still there - in the matter - waiting for the appropriate set of > conditions to engender its release. > > Pure energy is chaos, by definition. > > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 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/
