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

[Krimel]

[Mary]
I would like to revisit something brought up last Thursday in this thread
(apologies for running behind, but I've read all the follow up since, and
don't see this addressed).  Objections have been made to Pirsig's Baggini
interview, and particularly the quote below:

BAGGINI: 
One final question about aspects of the MOQ that might help explain academic
resistance to it. LILA has a remarkably wide scope and as a result it often
deals with, dismisses or solves ideas rather brusquely. 

For example, at one point you say "[The theory of evolution] goes into many
volumes about how the fittest survive but never once goes into the question
of why." (p144) 

Most biologists would see that as blatantly untrue, and that furthermore, if
you think the question of why the fittest survive hasn't been answered by
the theory of evolution, you just haven't understood it. Now it may well be
that you have responses to this and can explain why it is you think the
question of why the fittest survive hasn't really been addressed. But if you
present your thesis in this telescopic, sweeping way, surely you can't
complain if informed critics dismiss you. You can't expect them to take it
on trust that behind these assertions are more careful, fuller arguments
that justify the claims.  

PIRSIG: 
That line was an integral part of an entire chapter on the subject and thus
cannot be called telescopic. I would answer that biologists who think my
question doesn't understand the theory of evolution are biologists who do
not understand the difference between "how" and "why." The answers they give
for "why" are usually "competitive advantage" or "survival of the fittest."
But if you look closely you will see that these are not scientific terms.
"Fittest" is a subjective term. It exists only in the mind of a scientific
observer. It isn't out there in the nature he observes. The same is true of
"advantage." Ask a biologist who thinks my question doesn't understand the
theory of evolution, to define in exact scientific terms the meaning of
these evaluative words. If he takes time to do so I predict he will give up
or he will come up with nonsense or he will find himself drifting eventually
toward the solutions arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality.
-----

[Krimel]
As for the questions How and Why I think the difference is between questions
that can be meaningfully answered and questions that can't. Pirsig answer to
Baggini is really just demonstrates why Baggini had to ask the question in
the first place. 

Pirsig make no pretext at being a biologist but when some one piles up
enough misstatements like this, it does tend to detract from his credibility
in other areas as well.

I for one am eager to hear from Dr. McWatt on this. My question for him was:

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?

Ant?