John, What does science pertain to if not A kind of reality?
> On May 22, 2015, at 3:09 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
