Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [Platt] > > Yes, but it is the claim of science that there are > natural causes for > > all phenomena. > > SOM science, but not a value oriented science. Like I said, most science is SOM science that believes philosophically that there are no causes other than natural causes. No psychic phenomena allowed, not supernatural agencies, no prime mover, no God, and certainly no moral force. > That's why science is in the science department, > and then there is the philosophy department, and the > art department, etc... Science doesn't have all the > answers. Science doesn't even know why and what its' > doing. Philosophy knows what science is doing. > Science just does what a pre-conditioned philosophy > told it to do and how to approach understanding > reality. This philosophy comes from a sect of ancient > Greeks who preached SOM. This is why in Lila, > Phaedrus found out as follows: > "That was a problem. The whole field of cultural > anthropology is a house built on intellectual > quicksand... What was clear was that if he was going > to do anything with anthropology the place to do it > was not in anthropology itself but in the general body > of assumptions upon which it rests. The solution to > the anthropological blockage was not to try to > construct some new anthropological theoretic structure > but to first find some solid ground upon which such a > structure can be constructed. It was this conclusion > that placed him right in the middle of the field of > philosophy known as metaphysics." > > You see it's not science/anthropology, but the > assumptions founding science/anthropology that walls > out value. > This is found in-between what I quoted above in > Lila as follows: > > "The field that one might have expected to be one > of the most useful and productive of the sciences had > gone under, not because the people in it were no good, > or the subject was unimportant, but because the > structure of scientific principles that it tries to > rest on is inadequate to support it." > > Scientific principles, well that's where > philosophy takes over. So, Phaedrus found himself in > the middle of a field of philosophy called > metaphysics. On one end logical positivists and > mystics on the other end both rejecting metaphysics, > so, Phaedrus found metaphysics to be the common ground > between the two, thus, the bridge as Phaedrus puts it. > > So, with all these different departments studying > different aspects of reality that a highly complex > society, in which the U.S. is, an asking from this > societies youth is at hand. To uphold an existing > social structure many different departments exist to > educate youth into an existing culture. Does this > university with differing departments allow for the > interchange of information in which the physical > sciences can learn something of value from the > philosophy department, say... where the MoQ might be > teaching quality, well Ant, do you see this happening > at all? (And this is also what Arlo was wondering > about in some of his posts this month. Why do we get > education in schools? Is it to vote, to uphold an > existing economy? What does the giant want? Is the > intellect running the show? You've put your finger on a gripe I've had with education since the first grade -- very little integration of the various subjects under an overall umbrella of principles. What does 19th century fiction have to do with geology? How does Shakespeare fit with Islam. What is the relationship of anthropology to Western art? Apparently such questions are in nobody's department. Have a great day. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
