I'd say science pertains to a representation of reality. That's why science is malleable and subject to revision... no?
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- http://www.danglover.com 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
