Hello Mark,
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>
> 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.
Marsha:
Since there is no absolute by which to reckon whether RMP's
formulation is a little lop-sided or your head is a little lop-sided,
I'd have wonder what are you trying to grasp? Do you know?
Marsha
___
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
