Hi Platt, Yes, thanks. I have no question as to the power of the scientific method, it is an extension of common sense, as far as I can tell. Of course what is common may not be universal. Adding some salt to a stew and tasting it for flavor, employs the scientific method. I only caution against its use in places it does not have authority, such as being used against religion. Also, public policy often uses it to disguise a more sinister objective. The scientific method is practical, and its resulting theories are temporary. It's predictive power becomes questionable when the number of variables grow. Planet motion was easy, economics is a little more difficult.
Mark On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Just as an addendum to your insight about the nature of science I offer the > following quote from A. N. Whitehead, one of Pirsig's mentors. In speaking > of > science he wrote: > > "We must note its outstanding efficiency as a systems of concepts for the > organization of scientific research. In this respect, it is fully worthy of > the > genius of century which produced it. It has held its own as the guiding > principle of scientific studies ever since. It is still reigning. Every > university in the world organizes itself in accordance with it. No > alternative > system of organizing the pursuit of scientific truth has been suggested. It > is > not only reigning, it is without rival. And yet -- it is quite > unbelievable." > > Regards, > Platt > > On 29 Oct 2010 at 9:58, 118 wrote: > > Hi dmb, > > I have provided some clarification of my position in response to your post > below: > > dmb says: > > Exactly. Thanks Arlo. Ian (and the theists among us) sees this move as > "balance" but according to the MOQ this move is immoral. > > This is the thing that kills me. In the MOQ we already have a brilliant > critique of the limits of science and the limits of intellect. We already > have a strong defense against scientism and reductionism and a strong > rejection of the narrow empiricism that leads to both of those things. And > the MOQ criticizes and corrects this problem WITHOUT undermining science or > intellect. In fact, the solution is to bring art, science and religion > together by making them all subservient to Quality, to the primary > empirical > reality. To a radical empiricist, they're all supposed to be based in > empirical reality and faith becomes a very low quality basis of belief, > regardless of what domain we're talking about. Empirical reality. That's > what makes science work in the first place. And that's what's wrong with > faith-based beliefs in the first place. They're not based on experience. > They're not open to change or criticism. Ever noticed that Sanskrit and > Latin are dead languages? > > [Mark] > My opinion is that science is a faith, it has to be. Most of what we read > in books is not something that we have experienced, yet we accept it. At > the cutting edge of science one notes that it is as messy as metaphysics. > Ideas are formulated and rejected constantly. When there is agreement on > a > certain premise, that only lasts until the next change. The scientific > method is indeed useful, the scientism it professes is not. > > If you are stating that faith is not based on experience, then you are > missing a whole side of life which is open to many. This is not at the > expense of rational science, but in support of alternative experiences > which > have Value and can coexist. What is denoted as Empirical reality is > dealing > only with the objective side of things. As man has demonstrated, there is > an equally valuable subjective side. Of course religions are open to > change > and criticism, just look at the history of Catholicism itself. Neither > Sanskrit or latin are dead, they have changed, as is appropriate. > > Again, a one sided view of experience does not fit the facts of living. It > is turning a blind eye to what man is seeking. It can be considered > destructive, and I question the ends that it is trying to achieve. If > unity > of man under an objective and perhaps cold world is the intention, then it > is self defeating because it is against man's nature as expressed over the > millennia. Such notions will never survive for long. A lasting > metaphysics > cannot be so one-sided. > > Many now object to the seeming fantasy of the subjective. Indeed, > Descartes > converted the subjective to the objective by stating that it was mere > thought. MOQ is an attempt to rectify this, in my opinion, and harmonize > the subject and object. > > The lack of any meaningful subjective has resulted in either consistent > distractions with gadgets to avoid contemplating a seemingly endless state > of nothingness which is to come, or reactionary religions or social > movements which are put in place to counter the objective view. There is > indeed meaning here, such meaning lies within and without the empirical > reality which is created by the mind. > > Faith is needed for both, whether you like it or not. > > Cheers, > 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 > 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
