[Andrie, previously] Well, okay, i did read it again, to reconsider, re-balance it. (only as an aside, i took Arlo's points about the Amish in consideration,because in an earlier thread , setting time 100 years back was mentioned by you , Ian)
Ian "-adding value to the content of the arguments-" Adrie This is not really Angell's strongest point, exept for stirring up controverse's i cannot see him providing solutions for the so called imbalance. Handing over a so called problem is one thing, tossing in solutions another. There is a name for this used technique, it is called demagogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy ( Father coughlin was one of them) so i maintain my position,but adding this as fine-tuning He (angell) is a demagog,in the disguise of a religious fanatic. One more thing to toss in, i consider Pirsig's, James ,etc , their work as science. Good thread anyway. [Mark in response] Demagogy is a good term, we have some of that going on in our country right now. The fear of such would be valid if indeed one perceived a threat to the institution of science itself. I do not believe there is any such threat, science is not that fragile. The way I take it, is as an effort to bring some common sense to the whole phenomenon of Scientism. Much public policy is being made based on predictions that are impossible using the current data and tools of science. In that way, it has a religious flavor. We are pitting one religion (used in the sense of docile mass following) against another in a polarizing way, something that can be dealt with through reconciliation. It is a battle between the objectivism of science against the subjectivism of spirituality. The problem with religion is that it tries to infiltrate through the guise of science. It does this to provide some validity to its premises, which really is not necessary. However, this points out to the power of scientism, where a religion must incorporate such objectivism to seem relevant. The critical thinkers and philosophers on both sides (yes, intellect exists in religion) will concede the fact that they are not reconcilable in terms of finding middle ground, both must exist in balance. The point is to question the premises and absolute authority of either. In this way I found the subject matter refreshing. Opposition to such by some on the forum is not surprising. But, I do not see any threat to the institute of science itself, it is a natural arising from human intellect, as is religion. It is those that don't think about either thing, that the subject matter is directed towards perhaps in a provocative way to encourage thinking. Setting back time is appropriate if we took the wrong path which is leading nowhere. As the saying goes, if you see a fork in the road, take it. Thanks for your post Andrie. All the best, 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
