[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[Khaled Alkotob]

Ian, case and all

One has to master language and all it's nuances so you can go on in life
studying whatever you want, whether it's physics, nursing, English or
astronomy. Communication is paramount.
Practicing the music scales, so you know where the notes are.
Now when it comes to reason, logic, intuition, where do you go to learn
that. OK, so I add vinegar to baking soda and that's the reaction I get.
I ride a motorcycle without gas in the tank I am going to get stranded
somewhere. I keep writing checks without putting money in my account and
the are going to bounce. Day in and day out I see people doing things (
gee how did I get pregnant?) with results that seem to surprise them.
People have total disregard to day-to-day consequences. They get upset
when their telephone service gets disconnected for lack of paying the
bills.

Objective thinking is not in vogue anymore.

This is not HIGH science here, but science none the less. Bad math if you
want to call it that. But it's the attitude that  the-Gods-will-provide
that worries me. My father used to tell me "sharpen your pencil". 

from that comes the attitude that resources are forever, all is dandy,
and I am going to heaven. Meanwhile, reality and the future don't look so
rosy.

I don't mean to drag your point about the way science is taught to the
pedestrian level, but here is where I see the problem. A little knowledge
is a dangerous thing.

Khaled

[Ian]
> 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.
>