> On May 23, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd say science pertains to a representation of reality. That's why > science is malleable and subject to revision... no? > Ron replies: I would say so, a model or representation is tested in experience As having the ability to accurately predict observable phenomena. Thanks Dan that's a better way of putting it.
>> 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 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
