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

[Krimel]

[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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
[Dr. McWatt]
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.  


[Krimel]
Ian recommended the book and you supplied the publisher's blurb. Asking you
if you endorse a quote which you supplied seems hardly out of line. I am not
asking you about the book only about the quote which points out that
evolutionary thinking has expanded into nearly every human-related realm of
thinking except the MoQ. Since you seem to agree that this is so; how have I
put words in your mouth? 

What, in your view, does Pirsig's position on evolution offer that pretty
much every serious writer on the subject has missed? 

I would really love to hear you justify your bias. On the face of it, this
is not a choice between the Beatles and Wings but between the Beatles and a
neighborhood garage band. 

[Dr. McWatt]
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.  

[Krimel]
Both the MoQ and evolutionary theory are about how stable patterns arise and
persist in a dynamic and changing environment. Pirsig devotes an entire
chapter to the matter and botches it badly. Chapter 11 provides clear
evidence that Pirsig was not familiar with current thinking at the time he
was writing. Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker was published five years before 
Lila. It discredits the anti-evolutionary thermodynamic article in fact all
of Chapter 11 so completely, it is truly tragic that Pirsig seems to have
missed it. 

[Dr. McWatt]
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?). 

[Krimel]
I do get a bit nauseous when I realize that Pirsig endorses the same
argument that they do. How about you?

[Dr. McWatt] 
 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.

[Krimel]
I hardly think that Hawking would indorse much of anything in Chapter 11.
take this for example:

"If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature
then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive?"

He makes this same kind of statement repeatedly in Chapter 11. It is
obviously false. Life arises from these forces. Everything in nature follows
the path of least resistance. It can be a convoluted and twisted path but
nothing in nature strays from it. It is language like this that empowers the
likes of Bo to anthropomorphize everything. Levels in conflict is shear
foolishness.

Nor would Hawking indorse the whole chemistry professor fiasco:

"Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable
compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay
irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a
scientific fact.
The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth
causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's
energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else.
What is it?"

Nature isn't reversing anything. As I have noted before, if you put a
chemistry professor on a rock with some sunscreen, a bit of food and a
Playboy bunny, they will make lots of little chemistry professors. If you
put a chemistry professor on a rock and take away the sun he will turn into
a prof-cycle in seconds.

The statement below is so obviously absurd even Platt and Ham should be able
to see through it:

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems 'run down'
like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,'
converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy
chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep
'running up' faster and faster."

If it weren't for sunlight there wouldn't be any sea water or air. Both
would be frozen. Sunlight is the local source of energy that drives
everything on earth from ocean and air currents to photosynthesis.

Surely you know this Ant. You suggest that England is free of the subversive
forces and nitwits that try to keep this information from school children in
the US. You have a Ph.D. How could you read Chapter 11 and not question it? 

Even Ham has backed away from pushing the ridiculous thermodynamic argument,
despite repeated invitations to pursue it.

I notice you avoided my question about the Baggini interview. Does that mean
we are in agreement, Pirsig blew it? Weren't you the moderator or e-mail
gatekeeper on that exchange? 

Did Baggini really give Pirsig a pass and ask no follow-up question or was
he denied the opportunity?