[email protected] aan moq_discuss details weergeven 00:33 (2 minuten geleden)
Hi Mark, I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's behind the curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what Pirsig observed: "Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is impossible for a calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a discipline that has no values to comprehend values. The only thing a calculator does is calculating itself all the time, i can not reproduce itself,nor reprogram itself Good idea , platt, to put Mark forth on the playfield, hoping to trigger him into one of his events, nice prank. Best, platt 2010/10/20 <[email protected]> > Hi Mark, > > I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's behind the > curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what Pirsig observed: > "Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is impossible for a > calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a discipline that has > no > values to comprehend values. > > Best, > Platt > > > > On 19 Oct 2010 at 9:46, 118 wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi Marsha, > > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > > > When you state "Our claims about morality can have truth-value > > > and be as objective as our scientific claims." are you talking > > > about some definition of scientific objectivism? > > > > Steve: > > I'm promoting pragmatic anti-skepticism. I'm saying that we not not be > > any more skeptical about moral truth than we are about scientific > > truth. Anyone objecting to moral truth as not resting on firm > > foundations similar to those of scientific claims can be shown that > > moral claims in fact do not suffer by comparison to scientific ones in > > terms of epistemic grounding. All the criticisms typically made for > > the possibility of moral knowledge can be shown to apply equally to > > scientific knowledge that we are not skeptical about. > > > > Hi Steve, > In my experience, science is based on skepticism, asking questions, trying > to disprove. It is important to be skeptical about scientific truths else > wise we do not advance. The practical applications of scientific methods > are meant to uncover truth, not define it. I would go so far as to say > that > science presents a false notion of truth. > > The foundations of science are not necessarily firm, they are accepted. If > we are not skeptical about scientific knowledge it is due to the profound > indoctrination and resulting faith in its dogma. Such a thing is termed > Scientism. This is not railing against science per se, it is a judgement > against its applications to areas where it does not belong. > > Science is based on a system of equality through measurement. The accurate > measurement of truth lies outside in the regions of religion or philosophy > or just plain common sense. Such truth is not derived through scientific > methods, but through more intuitive approaches. Our communication with > Quality at a fundamental level is not measurable, it creates the concept of > measurement itself. It is impossible for a calculator to calculate itself. > > Regards, > Mark > > > 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 > -- parser 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
