[MD] Dawkins supports the MOQ

[David M]

Hi Ian

Yes, I certainly think science is often badly taught.
At bottom I think bad descriptions of science think that science
can only describe SQ and that that is all there is to existence.
Good science should recognise that there is a lot of DQ in the cosmos,
that this cannot be understood like SQ is. I would say a great deal of
good current science is starting to notice the DQ and recognise the limits
this imposes on an SQ based explanation of everything.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins supports the MOQ


> 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/
>>
> 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/
>