Hi Ian, Thanks for the link, I will listen to it, and peruse the book that Platt provided via link.
Without knowing the specifics of the content, it appears to bring in the notion of Scientism. That is indoctrination into the belief that science is a full description of reality, or will be at some time (promissory materialism). And as such represents Truth. This is what I have been suggesting for some time. I have ZMM to thank for setting me straight early on in my career. As a scientist (maybe somewhat of an outcast in this particular view), I have tried to impart the fallacy of this notion to fellow scientists. My concern is the political or coercive use of science in the same way religion is used. Science provides a description (or analogy if you wish) of that which we interact with. It is the very limited predictive power of science that creates a bewitchment into the notion that it explains all. No doubt the description provided does provide harnessing power and can be used to jettison people into outer space, and help cure medical maladies. So, science is useful. Such usefulness however, tries to extend into realms where it doesn't belong. We have had discussions in the past where Darwinism was used to nefarious ends. Perhaps one of the more egregious areas now being infiltrated is human psychology. William James helped to promote this. Such psychology treats the subjective in an objective sense. This is typical of Western thought and scientific materialism. Behavior becomes one of cause and effect, and treatable (Brave New World). Again science has alleviated maladies in this area, but its use in things such as morality is undeserved (thus my recent posts to Steve). If one accepts science and other philosophies as descriptions from different angles, then it is possible to harmonize attributes of each of these. Such a thing is being done by Wallace. However, such analysis does not make either philosophy more real, it just contributes harmony, and harmony is good. The current use of physics for such purposes, as I see it, tries to confer truth onto Buddhism (for example). This is a mistake, because it coerces people to accept and not question. My question to Wallace (without reading his book, although I downloaded some talks on the subject to listen to) would be: The fact that Buddhism and Physics agree would seem to be a factor that they were both created by the human mind, which is a fixed instrument with limited expressive properties (such limitation does not imply reductionism since the limits are unknown, but not infinite), so wouldn't a useful endeavor be to try to understand why such descriptive structures evolved? Even though this is an objective study, it may impart more intuition into the subjective sense of reality, perhaps better than the soft science of psychology does? The assumption is that there is a subjective entity (beyond the brain) that does impart free will. Two descriptions are arrived at though different means and then meet at the top of a mountain (think I've head that somewhere). They are both climbing the same mountain, what can that tell us about the nature of the mountain. Thanks again, and I'll give it a read. My searches on the internet suggest that putting science in its appropriate place is a growing movement. As a scientist, I appreciate this. But, we do not want the pendulum to swing too dramatically in the other direction. Balance, balance, balance. Mark On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote: > Can thoroughly recommend listening to this piece. > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vhhjm > (The second half, after the listener comments) > > I already blogged some comments. > http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3595 > > Ian > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Ian Glendinning > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting sounding Thinking Allowed later today. > > > > "... are most scientific claims little more than delusions? The > > Professor of Information Systems, Ian Angell talks about his > > co-authored book 'Science's First Mistake' which critiques science's > > claims to 'truth'." > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vhhjm > > > > Ian > > > 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
