[MD] Dawkins supports the MOQ

[ian glendinning]

Don't get your point David.
It's a good thoughful essay from someone who understands science is
more than objevctivity and that "Science represents nothing more, but
also nothing less, than our best interpretation of reality at any
given moment."

It doesn't describe any problems with the questions science asks. Far
from it  - it describes problems with the teaching of science - as
being somehow objective and absolute. Teaching has to start somewhere,
but science doesn't end there.

Good article by the way.
Ian

On 12/16/05, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> here are some of the problems with the questions science asks:
>
> http://www.resurgence.org/essaycompetition/green2004.htm
>
> DM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins supports the MOQ
>
>
> > Platt,
> > When you ask
> > "Why do the fittest survive? What's the motive?"
> >
> > You miss the fact that you've answered it already, using words like
> > best and better.
> > I have long likened "fitness" in the evolutionary sense to "quality"
> > in the MoQ sense. As you point out Pirsig had already effectively
> > answered the question.
> >
> > Dawkins doesn't miss the question of motive. As you'd expect he sees
> > no higher intelligent game plan, he simply sees the quality motive in
> > each and every interaction. He just doesn't have the word quality in
> > his vocabulary, the same MoQ-way you and I do.
> >
> > You do a disservice to intelligent scientists everywhere by even
> > suggesting they might not even be curious to ask "why". A fatuous
> > allegation. You just find a different kind of answer to the sort
> > you're looking for. That's your problem, not his.
> >
> > And lest there be any doubt, Dawkins I cannot stand. He's the worst
> > news for the cause of neo-Darwinism, because whilst sticking to his
> > objective scientific views, he fails to even acknowledge anything
> > remotely spiritual, despite orginating the idea of memes. Gimme
> > Dennett, Pinker, Blackmore or Jones anyday. I wrote an essay highly
> > critical of Dawkins some years ago.
> > http://www.psybertron.org/Dawkins%20Hyper-Rationalism.html
> >
> > Glad you spotted the fittest / best / MoQ / Quality parallel in
> > evolution though.
> > Hope for me and you yet.
> > That "BeliefNet" site has some good stuff doesn't it. Scott brought us
> > that Peyote reference from there too.
> > Ian
> >
> >>> On 12/14/05, Platt Holden <pholden at sc.rr.com> wrote:
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>