On Sep 12, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Hi Steve, Marsha, I keep hearing clips and trailers to Hawking hawking > his new book around, but haven't managed to catch one yet. That > "philosophy is dead" attention grabber is surely just that, one in a > long line starting with Nietzsche and taking in Pirsig's > philosophologists. Arrogant enough to get a reaction.
And repeated often enough on this roadshow to sell the new Hawking book by the latest and greatest media-created scientific celebrity. I was horrified. Thumbs down to Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Marsha > > Back to Steve's point. > > Those 5 Putnam statements are definitive statements from the point of > view of someone who believes the definition of a fact matters. The > number of "real life" cases where that holds is vanishingly small - > those repeatable laboratory cases where scientific method applies. The > value of philosophy is surely to integrate the fact / value views, not > help reinforce the divide. > > The problem with the Hawking / Dawkins "arrogant science" view is that > they believe that view IS "real life" and everything else has "lesser" > value. > > I do still believe we need to be tilting against the windmill Steve. > Public media still has a thing about "what science says ..." being > distinct from "what a politician says ..." Yes, young (inexperienced) > people (unless they are scientists or analytic philosophers - > inexperienced ones) will still form a mix of those that do or don't > see or even care about the divide. In my experience they range from > the whatever to the vehement, just like we grey beards do, only we > should know better. > > Ian > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:53 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Btw, I was listening to an interview with Garry Parsons who >> was a coauthor with Stephen Hawking on the new book 'The Grand >> Design.' The interview was on a pbs program. One of the last statements >> Parsons made was "Philosophy is dead!" He then went on to say that >> philosophy cannot tell us anything about the world we live in. >> >> Pretty arrogant, yes? >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:43 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> Interesting, and reminded me of asking how many angels can >>> dance on the head of a pin. But fun! And I image it has created a >>> quattuordecillion opportunities for papers to be published. And one >>> can only wonder about those 'ideal conditions'? Interesting... >>> >>> I have often wondered about the difference between a static >>> pattern of value representing a conventional truth (Tim is a >>> human.) and a static pattern of value representing a >>> conventional judgement (Tim is an hypocrite), or something >>> like that. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Steven Peterson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> 20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to >>>> Pirsig. Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more >>>> distance from the positivists, I wonder how young people today would >>>> read Pirsig's attacks on the fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder >>>> just who it is Pirsig thinks he is arguing against? >>>> Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a >>>> straw man. If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least >>>> at some point it will be a straw man, right? Someday young people >>>> just won't even know what Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got >>>> into Pirsig, I really felt like the notion of objectivity was being >>>> used to push values into some realm of noncognitive babble. Is that >>>> still happening today? >>>> >>>> Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to >>>> the dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary >>>> Putnam who also made such critiques on SOM: >>>> >>>> http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm >>>> >>>> (1) No statement is both evaluative and factual. >>>> >>>> (2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual >>>> statements. >>>> >>>> (3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any value >>>> judgments. >>>> >>>> (4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy. >>>> >>>> (5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false. >>>> >>>> >>>> Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig, >>>> Putnam, and the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been >>>> successful? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Steve >>>> 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/md/archives.html >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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/md/archives.html >> > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
