[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[ian glendinning]

But Case,

Surey the MoQ IS strictly "pragmatic" on the subject of ethics and
values, no need to be wary of that term. The point is that "pragmatic"
doesn't need to take on the arbitrary pejorative "relativism" of
anything goes in any situation. Far from it, we have a framework to
judge relative values. The pragmatism of un-reconsrtucted scientists
like Dawkins is great in theory (contingency) but lousy in action
(certainty).

As far as interminable debate on MoQ.Discuss, that's healthy surely.
It's not as if MoQ.Discuss is set up to be any definitive (current
best contingent) word on the MoQ.

(The pragmatic thing when public debate is endless, is some form of
government ... by the people, for the people, etc ... choose your form
of governance .... for me all roads lead back to this choice of most
MoQ compliant governance, of anything ... which is why I'm as
interested in the management / psychology angle as I am about the
philosophical / metaphysical angle here.)

Ian

On 11/27/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> Case, two points ...
> You said [of Dawkins] I don't care about his snotty attitude and he
> makes senses to me, he is aces in my book.
>
> [Ian]
> But you would agree that "attitude" counts for something if your
> objective is persuasion and a change of mind in the people who
> disagree with you ? Or does being "scientifically right" entitle him
> to "nuke the bastards" :-) ?
>
> [Case]
> There are a lot of bastards that need nuking. I still don't see what he has
> said that is objectionable. If what he says scientifically is reasonable
> however he spins it attitude wise strikes me as irrelevant.
>
>
> You also said
> > But it all seems to me to stem from the difficulty of attempting to
> > rationalize ethics. Ethics is about what ought to be and that is a tough
> > thing to justify.
>
> [Ian]
> But surely that is what the MoQ is about; to "rationalize" ethical
> values, without falling into the objectivist trap or blind faith trap.
> Probem solved ? That's why I'm here anyway.
>
> [Case]
> If that it is aim, it has failed miserably. Witness the endless political
> and economic debates we have here. Not to mention Pirsig's own use of the
> sports metaphor to explain why this doesn't work. It would seem that in some
> sense the approach taken in the first century had some merit. It certainly
> succeeded in uniting the West for 2,000 years. I know it sounds odd to be
> boosting Dawkins on one hand and hinting that ethics should be adopted on
> purely pragmatic grounds on the other. But what the heck nothing else seems
> to be working either...
>
>
>
> 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/
>