[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[David M]

> [Case]
> As I said I listen to a lot of stuff. I absorb hard books more readily by
> listening to them. I know my own habits and preferences pretty well.

DM: I had my tongue in my cheek.

> [Case]
> Nothing leaves you without hope for long because no one lasts long without
> it.

DM: Yes

>
> [David M]
> A science only perspective is all SQ and no DQ and no projects worth
> getting up for in the morning.
>
> [Case]
> I could not possible disagree more. I get up every day hoping to learn
> more.
> To see new relationships to gain a fuller appreciation for the elegance of
> how things work.

DM: Such a yearning & desire for beauty has yet to sit comfortably in the
current reality map of science, kind of points beyond it, but that is not to
devalue science just not to be limited by it.

>
> But any-kind-of-only perspective would be boring. Science is in some sense
> a > quest of objectivity, I suppose. But an interesting way to understand
> objectivity is not as a search for understanding from a particular point
> but
> for understanding regardless of point of view. Science invites multiple
> points of view but it endorses only those that survive rigorous tests of
> their worth.

DM: And how do we decide which tests are valid? The reaching for objectivity
is always about imagining away the subject. But of course agreement is 
useful.
>


> [David M]
> The reduction of living to functioning brought about by our authoritarian
> and conformist societies adds to this as well don't you think?
>
> [Case]
> Most of the authoritarian stuff I see is minor and mostly of recent
> origin.
> Searches at airports for example. Conformity results from clever
> application
> of behavioral principles, advertising, entertainment media, rules in the
> work place, local customs.

DM: I think Marcuse is interesting on this.


>