Hi Jon,
JON:
Pirsig's problems did in fact start with his questioning of
the fundamental nature of the scientific method...do we agree
on that at least?
Yes.
JON:
So while it *started* with his troubles with the sci-method, he
eventually realized it was our *relationship* with the sci-method
that really mattered.
I'd like to comment on what he says in ZMM Anniversary Edition,
pgs 113-118, and follow his arguments in some detail in another post.
JON:
Science says some nonexistent things--such as
gravity and time--are more scientific (in other words, more *real*) than
other nonexistent things--such as God...I think this is unfair.
I'll assume what you mean by "nonexistent" is "non-material".
I think most scientists say gravity is real and a majority say time is
real, even if both are not material.
And yes, God is unscientific because it defies analysis. Nevertheless,
half of scientists say God is real. How can this be? Should it not be
zero? According to you, science tells us what's real, and science tells
us God is not seen under a microscope, therefore God is illegal (as are
values, morals, etc). Despite the impressive impact science has
had, equating science with the metaphysics of our times is a gross
exaggeration and is the hallmark of the SOM strawman. Science doesn't
pretend to own the rights to reality, and the great majority of people
don't think it does. Most people don't expect science to "discover"
God or morals, like they discovered x-rays. Many people do not see
a contradiction between science and God, including many
scientists, because there is an obvious gulf between science and God
that science is not equipped to cross.
Science isn't in the business of defining what's real per se,
but of finding out how things work. It is interested in the laws and
mechanisms behind phenomena. In the process of doing this it has discovered
new things we didn't know existed before, like quasars and radio waves.
God is not a phenomena and cannont render itself to analysis. You cannot
point to God and say to a scientist, "figure this out".
This is not so with gravity. Everyone understands what is meant
by it and shares a common perception of it. You see the effects of
gravity every day. People who are watching can confirm that a pencil did
indeed drop to the floor. You can measure the strength of gravity and
see that it varies at different altitudes. Gravity follows a precise
mathematical equation that has been verified. Perhaps gravity is an
act of God, or even a kind of god. That's another approach.
Very little is known about time, but unlike God, notions about time
(the feeling of something passing and receding into history) are
experienced the same way by everyone. Time seems to be axiomatic to
understanding other concepts in science in much the way space is.
Notions about God, on the other hand, are personal, anthropocentric,
and strongly influenced by doctrine, dogma, and culture.
You think it is unfair that science doesn't consider God as scientific
and objectively real as other non-material things like gravity and time,
and I've given you reasons why I think it is fair, considering the business
science is in.
BTW, I don't think being a moral person is contingent on
a belief in God, although I'll readily agree that an important place to
learn morals is in a place of worship.
JON:
I think that our perception of morality is influenced by the culture we
live
in. Today's culture is driven by and dependent upon technology, and this
technology was provided by science. Science basically keeps us alive, and
it
does so without having to acknowledge the existence of morality whatsoever.
Agreed. Scientist would have a hard time convincing anyone that the basic
operations of atoms and chemical reactions had anything to do with morality
(in the conventional social sense, MOQ aside).
JON:
Thus morality is getting easier to pay less attention to, since morality
isn't what gives us our comfort. Science gives us our comfort.
You are misplacing the morals. People think nature is ammoral. But nature
isn't giving us our comforts; the scientist and technologists are. It's
these people who cared enough to invent air-conditioners and such.
I don't think this is lost on anyone in the general public. If anything,
people are grateful for modern conveniences, and are not sitting around
going, "My God, I'm surrounded by the products of cruel and heartless
objectivism!"
Also I don't think just because we have more physical comfort that we have
less of a need for moral or psychic comforting (doing kind things,
expressing sympathy, smiling at passersby). I see no connection. In fact,
having our physical needs met leaves us more time for moral comforting,
such as through volunteerism.
Feelings of technophobia and boredom, which result in fretting about
oneself and the world at large, are all byproducts of our modern
conveniences and physical comforts. We all suffer from them. But let's not
be so rash to blame all these problems on "cold and heartless objectivism".
Theories abound.
JON:
The scientific method is just a tool for the mind, but this tool has had
more
of an impact on civilization than any other thing. Yes, by itself the
sci-method *is* blameless. Like a loaded gun by itself is blameless. But as
with guns, we need to know what it is capable of, and we need to keep
safety
in mind, and we should at least consider the collective psychological
effect
of its inescapable use in the world has caused in us. (The psychological
effect of the widespread use of guns is fear IMO and the effect of the
sci-method is attitudes of increasingly cold objectivity.)
So you're saying the sci-method is like a loaded gun. Perhaps a smoking gun?
Are you sure you don't have a problem with the sci-method?
JON:
No, I actually enjoy science and find it fascinating. It's neat hearing
about
all the latest developments in the world of science. I like technology.
It's
cold objectivism that I openly dislike. I'm not the Unibomber for pete's
sake
LOL.
Well I know you're not the Unibomber, cos they caught him :)
JON:
"I still want someone to explain to me how science can be the most
respected
authority when it comes to the "search for truth" despite one of the tenets
of science being there IS no absolute truth. According to science there is
not one 100% proven airtight fact in existence. Not a single one. That's a
bit disconcerting considering we're supposed to look for science to find
truth."
JON:
The above quote probably makes me sound like I hate science, but that would
be an exaggerated assumption. I notice, however, that you did not say that
what I wrote above wasn't correct. And this is the thing that really annoys
me most...the unwillingness of the scientific community to acknowledge this
inherent hypocrisy. Science is the search for something that it says
doesn't
exist.
I was hoping that my pointing out that the Earth was round was evidence
enough of an ironclad fact of science. When you say that "Science is the
search for something that it says doesn't exist", I think you are
conflating Bacon's and Descarte's dream of science's potential with the
more reigned in attitude of science in the 20th century, thanks to folks
like Heisenberg and Godel. But let's not fly in the other direction and
say that everything is relative and nothing is certain. The Earth is round.
I am certain of that as I am of anything, and science taught me this fact.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not throw every scientific fact
into doubt.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
