-----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- Since science denies life has a purpose, I wonder if asking the question will raise questions you think don't belong in a science class. -----
I have no problem if broad philosophical questions are asked in science or any other class if they are introduced without a preset agenda. However, if someone's trying to sneak religion into classroom or distort curriculum to their own ends, I must object, as intellectual standards must be maintained and religious proselytization has no place in a publicly-funded institution. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- Your comment reminded me of a Pirsig quote: "When subject and object are regarded as grounded in and manifesting one ultimate spiritual reality, the MOQ agrees completely except for that term, 'spiritual.'" (Copleston Paper) I think that's similar to what Paul Davies may have had in mind when he wrote (to complete the quote cited above): "There must, it seems to me, be deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition." ----- I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in both of these quotations, and myself have something of a mystical/spiritual interpretation of Quality. However, I don't think it's appropriate to teach the MOQ as science. The MOQ & Davies are assertions about interpretations of science and reality, not about the empirical method and its resultant body of knowledge proper. I fully support these concepts being taught in philosophy, cultural studies, comparative religion, or intellectual history courses. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- I'll have to think more about that. Offhand I think the MOQ meets the criteria of science. It's natural (as opposed to supernatural), logical, empirical and economical. And for me at least it qualifies as beautiful. One of my gripes about education in general is the categorization and separation of subject matter whereby science bears little relation to social studies bears little relation to mathematics bears little relation to history, etc., etc. There's no attempt to integrate all subjects under a "metaphysical" umbrella. But, that's a discussion for another time. ----- Working in the education field (not as a teacher, though) I share your concern over somewhat artificial divisions in knowledge taught without an interdisciplinary connecting thread. I realize that sounds contradictory to what I said about keeping the disciplines distinct in my previous paragraph. As you say this is a discussion for another time, as it raises large issues worthy of extended discussion. In brief, though, I think that the integrity of each discipline must be maintained and their criteria for knowledge made explicit. If that's done, then the interdisciplinary approach making connections between the disciplines made explicit enriches rather than dilutes the curriculum. I agree there should be some "metaphysical" umbrella to what's taught in schools. However, I think a plurality of approaches should be employed and that the speculative nature of some of those metaphysical connections must be a central consideration. While the MoQ meets many criteria of empirical science, I don't know that it makes any predictions specific enough to be testable. If it did, then I suppose it could be taught in a science class. I happen to think it's a fascinating interpretation of science & experience, but I'm not convinced it qualifies as science itself. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- I think the effects are more subtle than that. When "marriage" comes to mean something other than socially approved union of a man and women, another moral code of society is weakened. For example, we have seen over the years a weakening of codes regarding out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and pornography, violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, upholding the law, etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that hold a society together. Such "static patterns" are as needed as Dynamic advances. Of course, this represents the eternal struggle between freedom and order. Exactly what balance is needed for a society to survive is one of those unanswerable questions. Like you, I go for freedom as the default position. But I keep thinking of the wasp-spider analogy in Lila 24: "The wasp plants its eggs in the spider's body and the spider lives on while the wasp larvae slowly eat it and destroy it." IMO, gay marriage is like a wasp egg in the body of society. . ----- Thanks for expanding on your views. I agree that there are slow-acting threats that are hard to detect that can erode the structures of society and that the wasp larvae metaphor is often apt, though I think it must be applied where evidence bears it out lest it simply be a scare-mongering device. I also agree that there must be a balance between static codes and dynamic change. That said, we still disagree on these social issues and I think there's divergence a couple of levels. First, I think that recognizing same-sex unions actually *increases* social integrity. By allowing homosexual couples to share medical insurance, have recognized communal property, and accrue other economic benefits, as well as by decreasing their alienation from the rest of society, same-sex unions incentivizes long-term committed relationships, leading to a more stable family-unit. I see this as a boon to social cohesion. While the source is obviously biased in favor of "gay marriage", there's some worthwhile reasoning on this issue at: <http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26888.html> Second, while I agree that violence, drugs, having children outside of a committed relationship, prostitution, pornography, profane language, lack of discipline, lack of respect for the law all undermine social cohesion, I don't think it's government's role to legislate away these moral "evils". In fact, I believe that both prostitution and (some) drug use should be legalized but regulated. While I think engaging in either is a degenerate practice, I think more harm than good is done by banning them outright. (See the lessons of prohibition here, especially as applied to drugs.) Government's role should be protecting against demonstrable harm in the least intrusive fashion possible. Other social institutions should be in the role of keeping us on the straight & narrow path. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- I'm all for blocking "heavy-handed government intervention." Is there any other kind? :-) Still, for the sake of social cohesion, I'll stand by my stance even though some motivations by the electorate may be less than pure. ----- There are definitely other kinds of government intervention. The difference between mandating CAFE standards & setting limits on CO2 emissions through flexible markets demonstrates one difference. The difference between banning alcohol vs. taxing, regulating, & educating against its abuse is another. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- Care to expand on the last paragraph? What is the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario? Sounds suspiciously like scare-mongering. ----- I'm happy to expand. "The Tragedy of the Commons" is math, not scare-mongering. The concept is fairly well explained in the article I linked to in a previous message when I first mentioned market externalities: <http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/073.html> The name derives from a 1968 *Science* article by Garrett Hardin in which he lays out a cybernetic approach to certain generic structural problems (exemplified by the overgrazing of the English common pastures [ergo "Tragedy of the Commons"] which led to the enclosure laws) in which pursuing one's individual "rational self-interest" ends up being detrimental for a society (and therefore, eventually, oneself) in the long term. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243> The pay-off matrix of the Tragedy of the Commons turns out to be identical to the game-theoretic construct of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and widely applicable in economic theory with respect to economic externalities, where the shared cost of an activity is not represented in the cost of that activity as represented to an individual. -----Platt, Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:24----- Bad choice of a word, "determine." Let me rephrase the question. How does intellect discern the Good and describe the Beautiful? ----- Essential questions at the heart of our dialogue here. 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/
