[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[Ant McWatt]

[Krimel asked Ant McWatt January 21st]:
 
 Would you agree that it is unfortunate that the MOQ excludes itself from
 mainstream evolutionary thinking as a result of Pirsig's lack of contact
 with say, Gould, Wilson or Dawkins? 
 

 
Ant McWatt commented January 21st:
 
No, I’d say it’s unfortunate that mainstream evolutionary thinking has
 excluded itself from taking on board the MOQ (though, to be fair, I think
 Dawkins followed this Discussion group for a while in the mid-2000s)!  If
 the (metaphysical) basics that you rely on are problematic in the first
 place then the value of your empirical work is going to be reduced
 accordingly.  LILA would have been a more interesting read if it had
 included reference to thinkers such as Gould, Wilson and Dawkins but
 possibly that would have taken out the fun for making these comparisons for
 yourself.
 
 
 
[Krimel then replied January 22nd]:
 
My question was prompted by a quote you posted earlier that included this: 
 
 
 "A century and a half after the publication of Origin of Species,
 evolutionary thinking has expanded beyond the field of biology to include
 virtually all human-related subjects—anthropology, archeology, psychology,
 economics, religion, morality, politics, culture, and art.”
 
And yet you claim all those disciplines would be better off embracing
 teleology and an account [of] thermodynamics that Pirsig shares with the
 Institute for Creation Research.
 
 

Ant McWatt comments:
 
Dear Krimel,
 
Firstly, that quote came from a review for Brian Boyd’s book “On the Origin of Stories” which was suggested by Ian Glendinning.  I haven’t had chance to buy, beg or borrow the book yet let alone read it!
 
Secondly, you’re putting words in my mouth.  Whatever the fields of knowledge mentioned in the review of the Boyd book that explicitly or implicitly use a metaphysics, it just makes sense that they use the best metaphysics available to them. I’m biased.  I’d say they should use the MOQ.  But like my general preference for
Beatles records over ones by Wings, I think there are good reasons for this.  
 
Thirdly, the issues concerning teleology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are only a relatively small component of the MOQ.  I don’t think either (and especially the latter) are critical to whether or not the MOQ stands or falls.  Regarding teleology, the MOQ differs from Creationist theories in that it doesn’t require a creator or pre-determined plan.  Following the reference in your last post, I did have a look at a couple of “scientific” papers at the Institute for Creation Research and they squeeze in a creator where they can.  In fact, this Creator is slightly increasing the disorder of the universe right now as a punishment for you for not believing in him (did you feel it go slightly colder then?).  
 
I also looked at a paper by Stephen Hawking on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (“Life in the Universe” found at http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65).  I don’t see any disagreement in the latter with what Pirsig has written about the subject in Chapter 11 of LILA.  Pirsig uses the example of how organisms create order out of disorder on very much the same lines as he uses the example of birds
flying into the sky (when they “defy” gravity).  Even though they are illustrating the same point (i.e. biological
patterns operate on different laws to inorganic patterns so often evade them or overcome them) the issue of how Pirsig has used gravity (in the example) never seems to generate anywhere near the controversy written about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  My guess is that the creationist vs. science debate is a more sensitive issue in the States so people (on both side of the debate) are reading into Pirsig things he simply did not say.



.
 
  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/