Matt said:
I'm wondering what it even means for science to reject, say,
biological values.
Marsha said:
Science might reject the physical responses accompanying jealousy,
fear or hate from biasing the interpretation or presentation of data.
Matt also said:
When did biology reject sex?
Marsha also said:
Biology includes the study of sex.
Matt:
The first response construes Pirsig in a useful way, but the second
walks into why the formulation is odd: science _studies_ stuff, but to
say it _includes_ it without the "study of" bit is to think that biology
includes having scientists having a lot of sex with each other ("in the
name of science," they keep telling their spouses). The answer to
the rhetorical question doesn't rebut the premise in the right way in
order to clarify the issue. Science rejects jealousy and fear as
appropriate responses in the "study of" bit, but in the same way the
answer to the second question could've been "biology includes the
study of fear." Biology doesn't reject sex, and it doesn't reject fear,
in toto: rather it rejects fear and sex in terms of their relevance to
the "study of" stuff. Which is why I find the Pirsig formulation a
little lop-sided.
Matt
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
