Allen wrote in response to my response of Allen's response to Michael Sylvester
(Common sense has a lot going for it) >Of course it has – but in terms of understanding the natural world in >its widest sense, other people, other cultures, etc, it also has severe >limitations Of course we haven't defined 'common sense' (and maybe can't). Probably we might have difficulty defining or at least perhaps disagree on what constitutes 'understanding' as well. As far as some of the results of the physical sciences then I would agree that the principles uncovered go beyond common sense. But 'understanding' other people, cultures, etc? I'm not so sure. Perhaps one of Michael Sylvester's basic points is that in trying to 'understand' another culture one must do so within your own culture and so one can never really 'understand' the other one. For example, the penchant of 'Western' culture is to quantify as Michael is pointing out. But this would fly in the face of lets say a culture based on Zen Buddhism which by its nature is non-quantifiable if you are going to 'understand' the culture. Again it comes down to what we mean when we say that we 'understand' another culture. If all we mean is that we can quantify certain social trends then we probably don't 'understand' that culture. >But I didn't (and wouldn't 20for one moment) suggest that there are not other major causes >of conflict than religion, True, and I wouldn't suggest that you would. I just highlighted the religion element because that's the one that is constantly being blamed for the world's ills by certain vocal opponents to religion such as that "great scientist" R. Dawkins. >I would suggest that the motivations of the physicists who have lobbied >for it go rather beyond just wanting to keep their jobs Said with tongue in cheek but does their motivation come down to much more than this? I'm not so sure that it does. Of course one can wax eloquent about humanity's curiosity and the need to explore and discover, but would that justify spending so much on physics which could be better spent on health care now. We already know enough to improve people's health but don't apply it because of 'economics' etc. Exploring more of space and the sub-atomic world won't help ordinary people with their lives now. I'm not suggesting we don't do science, but when we can't (or won't) apply the results is there much point in aggressive space and physics programs? --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
