Hi SA, You asked "To go according to strict politics and to ignore science, isn't this dangerous?"
I say, you bet it is. No brainer. (.... aside - the real problem is that there are too few people in the west who would even consider "ignoring science" - the balance is skewed well in the favour of science, logical postivism, objectivism, etc. - but that's another story. The point is ...) Simplistic politics and simplistic science are as bad as each other. Nowhere would I ever advocate ignoring science, but I would always advocate taking what is said in the name of science with a pinch of salt, like any other form of rhetoric. Anything communicated with language is rhetoric, whether it is written by a scientist or a politician. You need to find the patterns of value in lots of dialogue and narrative to work out anything like "truth" from anything like "language". (Immediate experience is the only short-cut.) Remember I'm an "excluded middles" kind of pragmatist. I'm not "against" science or politics, or rhetoric, or art, or even religion necessarily, in the right pragmatic context. The falacy is to expect to find truth in any one of them. The truth lies somehere between, in the all too easily excluded middles. The patterns created where all these things intersect / interfere / cohere - constructively. Regards Ian 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
