Hi Platt,
PLATT:
No one in the science world has convinced me that life accidentally
popped up from no life or that mind randomly arose from no mind. The
great advantage in thinking the MOQ way is that it adheres to the
scientific Principle of Causality, presenting a rationale for evolution with
far greater explanatory power than the non-causality, scientific
hypothesis of �Oops.�
In earlier posts you criticized science for always insisting on mechanisms,
and now, when you point to the scientific hypothesis of "Oops", a
hypothesis that relies on no mechanisms, you criticize that, too.
PLATT:
Lest you think I�m an hard-core basher of science and scientists, let
me clarify my position by quoting from H. Smith, author of �Forgotten
Truth:�
H. SMITH:
�With science I have no quarrel. Scientism is another matter. Whereas
science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what it discovers,
scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual findings of science to
deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid or other truths true.
In a way, the success of science has gone to people�s heads like too
much rum, causing them to lose their grip on logic. They�ve come to
believe that what science discovers casts doubt on things it does not
discover, and that the success it realizes in its own domain throws into
question the reality of domains its methods and devices cannot touch.�
Of course science has not proved there is no God, and we have
every right to be upset at scientismists who claim "there is no God because
science can't find evidence of God". However, it's inevitable that science
eats around at the edges of some tenets of religion and even forces
us to re-evaluate our notions of God. For example, not many who have given
serious thought to the matter still believe heaven is located in outer
space and hell is located underground. And yet most Christians still
believe in heaven and hell. It's just that the locale is now indeterminate.
This is all due to science taking the mystery out of the heavens and the
earth, and people come to these conclusions themselves.
I had to look scientism up in the dictionary because I'd never heard of it
before. It's the belief that the methods of science should be used in all
other fields of inquiry. It doesn't work, but I guess you can't blame
people for trying. I suppose this is why we have social science, political
science, computer science, and Christian Science.
Smith says "[Science] goes beyond the actual findings of science to
deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid or other truths true." He
makes science sound like some state-sponsored socialism, where the
scientific method reads like the Communist Manifesto. But there is no
oppression at work here. The questioning of other approaches to knowledge
is a natural consequence once you start making comparisons. The knowledge
gained through science is so much more certain than the knowledge gained
by other approaches that it has caused us to re-evaluate even what
knowledge is. Science forces us to accept that knowledge is in a different
class from opinion, belief, myth, metaphor, and guessing, in a way that
was non-existent in the days of Plato.
PLATT:
Since science cannot touch the domain of values, and yet, as you
admit, we posses a sense of quality that is a genuine perception, it
appears something besides mind is missing from science�s
�universe,� leaving Pirsig a wide open field to explore. That he treads
on some scientistic toes while doing so should not come as a
surprise.
I'd like to take this up in a separate post.
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
