[MD] Food for Thought

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo had said]
Science, then, [is] criticizable for not recognizing morals on the intellectual
level

[Craig]
This seems like criticizing chess for not determining which opponent is the
faster runner.  That's what a footrace does.

[Arlo]
I thought I just took this from Pirsig. "[t]he Metaphysics of Quality goes on to
say that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over
society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no
provision for morals."

[Arlo]
Science...is also criticizable for its undermining of social patterns (not
providing a harmonious balance on the social level).

[Craig]
Again, it seems that you're trying to get something different out of science (or
out of truth) that it is meant to provide.

[Arlo]
Perhaps the problem here is in the word "science". In ZMM Pirsig used the word
"rationality" to describe I think the same thing. "The true system, the real
system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality
itself... that dull, complex, classical ghost of underlying form.... Our
current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better
world. They are taking it further and further from that better world." He also
refers to it as "reason". For example, "... the whole structure of reason,
handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be
seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and
spiritually empty."

[Craig]
For instance, suppose science tells us that burning too much fossil fuel is
creating global warming.  This information might undermine social patterns, but
it can be used to create a more harmonious balance on the social level.

[Arlo]
I'm not sure why you think I'd disagree with this. In fact it's pretty much what
I tried to say. That in a comparison of the two intellectual patterns, "god"
and "science", the former stifles social patterns, so they are unable to adapt
or evolve. This to me IS "out of balance", as balance is that point where
openness to DQ is maximized while preservation of forward motion is achieved.
(Ah, you know David Granger has a well articulated passage on balance in the
beginning of his book, I'll have to post it later today. I am only about 1/2
through his work, so I've been holding off commenting, but its one of the
better books I've had the pleasure to read... more on that later.)

[Craig] 
I see science as telling us:  if you do X then Y will (tend to) result.  It is a
different investigation to tell if Y is good or not.

[Arlo]
Again, maybe its just the LILA use of the word "science" instead of
"rationality" or "reason".

[Craig]
Is it the idea of god or rather the belief in god (or actions based on a belief
in god) that has this consequence?

[Arlo]
That's a damn good question. I think I'd side with the latter, "consequence",
which appears to be seeing how an "intellectual pattern" effects social
patterns, no? If we compare ideas without reference to their
social-consequences, are we left with "[t]he tests of truth are logical
consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation" (Pirsig
referring to Einstein). 

Then we could ask, which of these two ideas, "god" or "science" are logically
consistent, agree with experience and provide an economy of explanation? This
would give us the higher-quality intellectual pattern.