Ron, Jan and all, Science sees itself outside of the rhetorical game? Sort of. Perhaps another way of saying it is that science sees it's rhetorical games as of a very special class. That pertaining to actual reality. When science does this, it's making a big mistake.
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > This is what was very interesting about the article from my point of view. > Science sees itself as outside the rhetorical game. Therefore it does not > utilize the art of persuasion as effectively because it assumes the facts > speak for themselves , the facts > Themselves should be convincing enough. However, experience shows that > this not enough and sadly science is losing the battle in the arena of > public opinion. > > > On May 20, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Jan, John , > > I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what > often is passed as "fact" is often opinion or point of view. An assumption > . However, facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience. > Often that quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments > today. > > -Ron > > > >> On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi JC > >> > >> Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is > defined by a group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral > level, where scientific concepts are the same for any individual? > >> > it can lead a hasty interpretation in that direction, Jan-anders, but a closer examination shows a deeper truth - that the distinction between social and intellectual is non-absolute. that is, the line between is more dualistic and relational than distinct and oppositional. At least from an enlightened point of view! Which I take as an assumption, here. It is also problematic, for me, to assume the 4th level (as we conceptualize it for convenience) to be ruled by science. Intellect is much bigger than mere science can comprehend - for intellect accepts the existence of DQ, and science does not. JC 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
