On 12/8/05, Jeffrey Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/05, Sandwichman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Jeffrey Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>for example, "Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, claims
Look, I'm not interested in getting sucked into a debate about the merits or otherwise of intelligent design. I have bigger fish to fry.I'm more interested in the designs of intelligence.
well, here i wasn't concerned with the merits of the "theory" but with the nature of the claims.
>we cannot simply dismiss the real differences (plural) between religious and >scientific approaches to the world's problems as so much ideological claptrap. if >that's not what you're saying, then please help me understand what exactly it is >that you ARE saying.
Well, that's not only not what I'm saying. It's almost an exact repudiation of what I've said. It is the significance (and complexity) of the plural differences that the myth of a singular difference (and conflict) does dismiss and that's why I'm arguing against the mythologizing of the science/religion dichotomy. Outside of that mythical misconstruction THERE IS NO SUCH DICHOTOMY. And that's all that I'm saying.
I think it might have been from reading Walter Ong (a jesuit scholar) that I learned about the rhetoric of Pierre Ramus (yes it was, I remember now). The word ramification comes from his name, I believe. His rhetorical system was based on a endless progression of dichotomies.("There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide all things into two categories and...").
Ramus's rhetoric was extremely influential in education. Extremely. And absolutely stultifying. The trick to that rhetoric is that although it is analytically quite sterile, it produces effective mnemonics. That is to say, it "works" because the knowledge classified thereby is easier to memorize, even if it is poorer quality knowledge. Real thinking, though, has to struggle against the seductions of the memory bordello and at the same time struggle against the consequence of precisely that struggle: forgetfulness.
right. as i was beginning to think, we don't actually disagree about that much. maybe not at all.
If what I have just wrote does help you understand what I'm saying, will you promise not to forget?
of course not. but i can promise to try. either way, you'd have to trust me for it to mean anything.
j
--
"lo que decimos no siempre se parece a nosotros"
--
"lo que decimos no siempre se parece a nosotros"
