[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[David M]

Hi folks

I just think we will be better off when we accept
that science is about thinking & creating concepts/theories
applying them to experience, fitting up controllable experiments,
and attaining agreement about the meaning of the results with a
wide a community as possible. Objectivity/true? Well these
are nice compliments, but provisional ones.

DM



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> Hi Mike, Bo made the similar point ...
>
> Would that a few such philosophers were really so powerful, but the
> important angle is this, I believe.
>
> If "we" undemined objective enquiry completely that would be a
> disaster - agreed.
>
> Pragmatically, as I've said many times, subjects, objects, newtonian
> physics, are just fine for much of daily life, and will probably
> remain so. "Objective Scientific Method" will remain central to
> advancing "scientific" knowledge, whatever the domain, as far as I can
> tell.
>
> What needs undermining is the idea that this kind of objectivity has
> exclusive rights to advancing knowledge, rational enquiry and
> justifying decisions in all and any domains. There is no domain in
> REAL life (scientific or otherwsise) which is governed entirely by a
> SOMist metaphysics. We need a working model which has subjects and
> objects and objectivity in their rightful place, not as the fundaments
> of metaphysics.
>
> We must not throw baby out with the bathwater.
> That's not just dangerous, it's criminally low quality.
> A more subtle mode of change is called for.
>
> Softee, softlee, catchee monkee - as I may have said.
> Sorry, but I'm pasionate about this aspect :-)
> Ian
>
> On 1/5/06, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The Quality idea is extremely dangerous to objective intellectual
>> value, for the same reason that objective intellectual value
>> endangered social value (as described in LILA). Ever heard of the US
>> administration's attitude to the "reality-based universe"? I get the
>> uneasy feeling that they have a partial realisation of something like
>> Quality. A little knowledge is an extremely dangerous thing. Just as
>> the intellectuals in their triumph over society released biological
>> value from its shackles to a dangerous extent, my paranoid self can't
>> help but worry that a few powerful philosophers might be undercutting
>> the value of objective inquiry in order to manipulate society and
>> popular opinion to their advantage.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 1/5/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Bo, (and Platt)
>> >
>> > I appreciate many of the contributors to the Edge took the same direct
>> > line, but many, and the intent of the original question was something
>> > "true but dangerous" rather than "false and dangerous". I'm sure Platt
>> > got it when he recognised beauty as true but dangerous..
>> >
>> > You said
>> > > IMO the real danger about the MOQ is that "truth" is shown to be
>> > > a static level that made its entry on the historical scene with the
>> > > Greeks, already this undermines it, particularly if the MOQ is
>> > > supposed to introduce a "many truths" reality as you, Paul
>> > > apostles, want it to ;-).
>> >
>> > I actually think you are confused here. I don't understand your point.
>> > I do not believe truth is static in any greek or SOMist sense, but
>> > evolves in line with the MoQ. Obviously the MoQ "undermines" anyone
>> > who does believe it. I don't introduce "many truths" - just a
>> > different, paradoxical, evolving truth - no arbitrary relativism here.
>> > (Subject of many of the Edge responses by the way.)
>> >
>> > Do you believe "truth" is a static level (in any metaphysics of 
>> > reality) ?
>> >
>> > You also said that I seem to "relish" the destabilising effect.
>> > That could not be further from the truth. I'm an evolutionary, not a
>> > revolutionary. My whole interest is in avoiding the catastrophe. I'm
>> > acutely aware of the "danger of untrammelled truth. My objective is to
>> > find ways of getting the means for evolving truth into the mainstream.
>> > At present MoQ is my best hope. The difficult part is how to get it
>> > into the mainstream scientific and philosophical questions you
>> > mention, without rejection and destruction - a constructive synthesis.
>> >
>> > Some eggs will always get broken, the kitchen will always get hot. The
>> > point (of anything in life) is to make sure any collateral damage is
>> > minimised on the path to progress. ie being aware of the dangers, in
>> > order NOT to escalate them. I relish that problem, not the
>> > consequences of the dangers.
>> >
>> > How you cannot understand my position after all this time is baffling.
>> > A bit like Platt, I know you are not that dumb :-)
>> > Ian
>> > 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/
>