Yes and the excellent John Dupre was on it too, author of the Disorder of Things.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect > Platt et al, > > The most recent BBC "In Our Time" is about Microbes and Microbiology > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml > > Covers many of the points being debated here about post-Darwinian > evolution mechanisms now (and past) in microbes of all kinds. Worth a > listen. > > Ian > > On 3/8/07, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Arlo: >> >> > [Platt] >> > Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside >> > science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish >> > the >> > validity of it's theories. >> > >> > [Arlo] >> > Of course, we never "observe" quarks either, but our science posits >> > that >> > they are real. What we observe is small, micro-evolutionary movement >> > that >> > demonstrates that pattern adapt and change as they move towards >> > "betterness". We can take snapshots of different moments in history and >> > propose that changes between two and attributable to the same natural >> > processes that we are able to observe. >> >> According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian >> evolution appears to be in the same category. >> >> > For example, consider geological evolution. No one was there to >> > "observe" >> > the entirety of the process that moved our earth from swirling mass of >> > gas >> > and particles to the inter-glacial world we see around us. We infer (or >> > abduct, if you will) that there was a process of change, a natural >> > process, >> > that was the cause of this transition. But, since at any given point in >> > the >> > timeline it would only ever be possible to view this retrospectively, >> > at >> > each moment, including our own, it "appears" evolution has stopped. >> > But, as >> > I've said, the same inference that allows us to rest comfortably >> > knowing >> > the sun will rise tomorrow guides us to see that this process has not >> > stopped, it just always appears to be so from any temporal vantage >> > point. >> > >> > If you think that "science" is without inference, hypothetical >> > induction or >> > abduction, you take a limited view of science that is largely >> > incorrect. >> > >> > [Platt] >> > Is Conant's description of science wrong? Or do we make an exception >> > for >> > evolution when we bill it as a 'scientific" theory? >> > >> > [Arlo] >> > I'm not familiar with Conant, or what he may or may not have meant by >> > what >> > he said, but given the way you apply it here, Conant would say that >> > Quantum >> > Theory lies outside science. A strange this to say. >> >> >From Wikipedia:"James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 - February 11, 1978) >> was a chemist, educational administrator, and government official. He was >> born in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1893 and graduated from the Roxbury >> Latin School in Boston in 1910. He went on to study chemistry at Harvard >> (B.A., 1914; Ph.D., 1917. As a Harvard professor, he worked on both >> physical and organic chemistry. The American Chemical Society honored him >> with its highest prize, the Priestley Medal, in 1944. In 1933, Conant >> accepted an appointment as the President of Harvard University, a post he >> held until 1953. Between 1941 and 1946, he also served as chairman of the >> National Defense Research Committee; from that position he played a key >> role, along with his close friend Vannevar Bush, in ramping up the >> Manhattan Project which developed the first nuclear weapons. After World >> War II he was an advisor to both the National Science Foundation and the >> Atomic Energy Commission." >> >> I think he qualifies as an expert in describing science's methodology. As >> for quantum theory, I believe there have many observations of particle >> traces on oscilloscopes to confirm the theory, not to mention the utility >> of the theory in computer science. But, I defer to Magnus and others on >> observable aspects of quantum theory. >> >> > [Platt] >> > Well, with all due respect to you and Mr. Pirsig, I consider his MOQ to >> > be >> > a macro-level evolutionary change in the intellectual level, so much so >> > in >> > fact that the intellectual level dominated by SOM is barely >> > recognizable >> > from the MOQ perspective. >> > >> > [Arlo] >> > I'm sure the Japanese, who Pirsig informs us don't see the fuss we >> > make, >> > because they've gotten this all along, are happy to know that _WE_ have >> > brought about evolutionary change to the intellectual level. >> >> Easy for the Japanese to say when the evidence since WW II points to >> their adoption fo Western SOM metaphysics. Looks to me like they >> are devolving. In any case, the Japanese idea of the MOQ is nicely >> described by Pirsig in Lila. "Japanese Zen is attached to social >> discipline so meticulous they make the Puritans look almost degenerate." >> In view of your opinion of religious fundamentalists, I guess this is not >> your idea of the MOQ in action. >> >> Platt >> >> 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/ >> > 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/ > 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/
