[MD] Metaphysics

[David Thomas]

On 1/14/10 3:59 PM, "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:

> [Ham]
> Why should I have to contend with Dawkins, a biologist who (like many here)
> is obsessed with the notion that Creationism somehow has a stranglehold on
> scientific investigation?
> 
> [Krimel]
> Is this a joke? Creationism (I notice you use the honest term, at least,
> rather than disingenuous ID) has a stranglehold on biology? I think what
> pisses Dawkins off is the persistence of this stupid idea. Creationism is
> rooted in dogma not logic or science or anything else. If ever there was an
> example of people being held in the thrall of an idea for social rather than
> intellectual reasons this is it.
> 
> It is just flatly dishonest for people of that ilk to pretend to justify
> their dogma with the very tools they are trying to overthrow. Like say
> obvious misconstrueals of the Law of Thermodynamics. I suspect that is what
> annoys Dawkins and impels him to speak out against such absurdity.

[Dave]
The point is that a various times you have indicated that you are developing
a "philosophy" that has a similar name, may have some connection with the
previous one,  have a website expounding those views, and often make sounds
you would like to or are thinking about entering this intellectual arena. He
is in that arena and has shown, like in the case of Creationism, he does not
brook fools lightly. Not that I'm calling you one. But if you're serious and
do actually have the intellect to get there he has shown he will not
hesitate to do so.

During a mid-2008 BBC video on the science advice he might give to a U.S.
President, 

Dawkins suggested
³ In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid
or insane.[12] ² wikipedia quote

[Krimel in another thread]
Thirdly, in terms of asserting whatever "authority" an author might have
over the ideas he has expressed, Pirsig has done an astonishingly piss poor
job of expanding, expounding and clarifying his meaning.

[Dave]
As Krimel suggests above if you think you have something important or "good"
enough to really enter the intellectual kitchen you need also to be willing
and able to take the heat. For the majority of us the answer is: None of the
Above.

I noted years ago that in my opinion Pirsig, although he did/does have a
high IQ, for whatever other reasons (combinations of being treated as a
prodigy, early educational acceleration, early failure, probable lagging
social skills at that time, genes?) just didn't have the complete package of
skills or find the right niche to compete at the level his IQ might suggest
he could have.

Did he choose the outsider role or did it choose him? I don't know.
But, again IMHO, he chose an end run around the arena which was all he could
manage. How successful will it be? Someone(s) else will have to figure that
out. 

Dave