[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[ian glendinning]

Hi Khaled, and DMB, et al ...

Khaled said earlier
Science, by its nature, never claims to be the "TRUTH".

The problem Khaled, is human behaviour, and even scientists are human.

What you say is true, but people mis-using science habitually forget
the contingent aspect, particularly when they see themselves as
"fighting against" a lesser truth like "blind" faith. It's the trap
(of certainty of polarised opposites). Like being certain of science
is somehow a lesser evil than certainty of faith. (To use DMB's
expression, it's like it's OK when the stakes are so high, for science
to forget its scruples when defending itself against the inferior
"truths".)

It's a common behavioural problem (in management circles). people tend
to claim adherence to one theory (eg science is contingent), but act
according to a different one (eg science is truth). Chris Argyris
contrasted these "Espoused Theories" with "Theories in Action". Nils
Brunsson calls the problem "Management Hypocrisy". We are what we do,
not what we say.

I say, the stakes are so high, it's crucial that science (intellect)
upholds it's standards of truth - maybe even remembers that the
seemingly absolute standing of "objective disproof by scientific
method" could itself be contingent. Nick Maxwell of Friends of Wisdom
effectively points out this failing in the way "science" is taught.
It's our faith in objectivity (and logical positivism) as a foundation
for intellect that gets us every time, so far anyway. The MoQ will out
though. The Granger / late-Deweyian persective on Pirsig gets this
right.

Ian

On 11/26/06, Khaled Alkotob <khaledsa at juno.com> wrote:
> DMB, David, Case and others
>
> I have been out of town for the holiday, now I am back.
>
> In a way it was nice to have been left out of this debate, it gives me
> the opportunity to step out, read the discussion and go back in.
>
> Matt, to answer your question as to why people keep wasting time on this?
> Let's see, Sudan, Ireland, Lebanon, the Balkans, Iraq and so on.
>
> I guess it boils down to the "truth" and who has a monopoly on it.
>
> Pirsig's journey was about Quality, and in a way that is universal.
> Truth on the other hand, or better yet Religious Truth (RT) has been the
> cause for more blood shed than any other causes.
>
> A few weeks ago there was a local lecture entitled "Jesus in the Koran".
> Some of the attendees were there with their own agenda to set the speaker
> on the right path. That got me wondering why such zealotry?
> Then it dawned on me. Certain religions set themselves as being the
> absolute RT. It's like an inflated balloon, the smallest pin prick and
> it's gone.
> When the evangelical Christians say "this is the way, the only way and
> the right way", they are setting themselves for a fierce battle. To admit
> to the fact that any other religion out there might also lead to
> salvation, is to destroy their doctrine, it's their way or the highway.
> That goes the same for the Muslim Religion, by saying that the Koran came
> down by fax, and it's "The Word of the Almighty himself", it leaves no
> room whatsoever to bend and change with the times. It's that balloon
> again, one little prick and it goes.
>
> Meanwhile, the faithful can't seem to think for themselves. remember this
> is based on blind faith, so they go down the path of destruction Kipling
> each other.
>
>
> Khaled
>
>
> [Khaled earlier]
> Science, by its nature, never claims to be the "TRUTH".
>
> [David M]
> > SOM lurks here, there are no numbers in the world, so maybe you
> > would do  better to refer to facts that exist in the world, yet we only
>
> > recognise  experience here rather than abstractions, so how many cows
> can you
> > see?
> > Depends where you're standing. Is 'equals' such a great concept?
> > ...Does one cow ever equal another one? Every cow is different on my
> farm.
> > 'Equals' only  ever works when you reduce the full range of quality
> experience to
> > quantities.
>
>
> [DMB]:
> > Huh? I think "equals" works perfectly well when one is adding
> > numbers, as Khaled was, and I fail to see the relevance of cows.
> Khaled's point is
> > simply that scientific truth is more dynamic than religious truth
> > This is a  point Pirsig has also made and its a point DM always seems
> to miss.
> > This is  why empirically based beliefs are superior to faith based
> beliefs,
> > the  latter being too static rather than stable. As I see it, Khaled
> was
> > using  the math equation to show how such intellectual patterns do not
> > depend on  any particular social level contexts for their validity, to
> show
> > their  "universal" accessibility. I don't think SOM lurks here at all.
> > Basically, I think Khaled is quite right on this point and that DM's
> reply is
> > incoherent  and misses this point entirely. Besides, everybody knows
> that cows
> > can't do  math.
>
> [Khaled]
> Universality is the point I was trying to make. Just as the periodic
> table holds true everywhere, and to a degree, Quality holds true
> everywhere, one wishes that God hold true everywhere.
>
>
> [DMB]
> > See, the thing about traditional religion is that it tends to be
> > exclusive. You know, kill all the infidels and all that. In the West,
> Christian
> > missionaries and colonialism and genocide have tended to be of a
> single
> > fabric. Science as such is not the great peace-maker, but if we
> > broaden the notion so that this is framed in terms of social level
> traditions
> > vs. intellectual principles its not too hard to see the calming effect
> that could be
> >gained by a reduction of ethnocentrism and nationalism and religious
> conflict.
> >
> > The conflict between social traditions and intellectual values, as
> > we all  know, is described as the central historical conflict in the
> West's
> > recent  history. The 20th century, with all its horrors, was animated
> by
> > this conflict and it still is. This conflict is between nations and
> > within nations. Hell, its between and within families. See, its not
> just
> > about how  we justify our beliefs or the quality of those beliefs, it
> is also
> > very much about the consequences of those beliefs.
>
>
> [DMB]
> > In ZAMM there is a lot of talk about the "church of reason" and
> > there are some MOQers who want to read this as saying that science and
> > religion are on the same footing, that they are equally faith-based
> beliefs. This
> > interpretation misses the same point. There's no doubt that Pirsig
> > sees scientific objectivity as flawed, as amoral and seeks to remedy
> that
> > problem, but I think its a huge mistake to let theism rush in here.
> > The idea of describing intellect in terms of the church of reason is to
> make
> > the same point that Quine did, that "objects" are every bit as
> theoretical as
> > the gods. In this way Pirsig attacks the assumptions of SOM, but this
> is
> > not an attack on empiricism or intellect per se. The idea here is to
> address
> > the  flaw, not to kill the intellect or re-assert religion.
>
> [Khaled]
> I understood the term "church" here as institution
>
>
> [DMB]
> > See, Pirsig sees the continuing conflict of the last century as an
> > evolutionary struggle wherein the success of intellect is at stake.
> > There is a very real possibility that social level values will win and
> our
> > culture will slip back to the social level. I think the conflict
> between
> > science and  religion has to be understood in these terms and that it
> would be a
> > tragedy of epic proportions if the evolutionary advances were not
> protected
> > from  such degeneration.
> >
> > And I think its a small tragedy that some MOQers don't seem to
> > understand  what's at stake here and don't seem to understand that
> they're, in
> > effect,  defending evolutionary regression.
>
>
> 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/
>