Mark said to dmb:
>From your short response, I assume that you agreed with what I had posted.
>Also your quotes do not mention radical empiricism once. Was there a reason
>for this? Am I missing something?
dmb says:
You assume that I agree? How is it possible to get that impression from what I
said? What part of "you're way off on the wrong foot" sounds like agreement to
you? Ridiculous.
You said "radical empiricism [...] is in effect the scientific method as I see
it, is the non-inclusion of the imagination". The quotes from Pirsig explain
his critical attitude toward the scientific method. Not the least of all, he
criticizes science for its blindness to Quality (because it was not a physical
property and was not measurable by scientific instruments).
Mark said:
In summary, I find many flaws in your quotes. It sounds more like a rant
against some phantasm of Science. If you would like to dispute this with me,
then I am happy to listen. If you do not, then I will assume that you will
agree with me as you did with the body of my previous presentation.
dmb says:
The quotes dispute your claim that radical empiricism is just like the
scientific method because of what it leaves out. I said quite clearly that you
were way off and then presented textual evidence relevant to your bogus claim.
And you took this as agreement!?!
No, sir. I certainly have no interest in discussing the nature of science with
anyone who reads that badly. Sorry, but the level of incomprehension on display
here is really quite ridiculous.
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
