[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, I think I did acknowledge with a quote from yourself in the same mail.

Interesting that you suggest "I" convert it into the choice between
two evils, when in fact my point is to say that this is the problem,
that too many people do tend to see it that way ... I'd kinda accuse
you of that in fact, in a general sense, but enough about us.

If I really had only that choice, I too would see the scientific
(contingent) certainty as the lesser evil. What I'm really saying is
that MoQ is the antidote to having to make such a choice. Leave both
the lesser evils behind and choose the greater good. I'd even say a
choose the higher value middle ground, an excluded middle, but I'd
probably end up winding you up ;-)

Seriously though, I do still see the over-confidence in scientific
certainty (especially selective ill-informed partial "little knowledge
as a dangerous thing" science) as a real trap - from real world
experience - reasonably broad and well-informed experience I'd
suggest. Part of the reason for the rise of fundamentalist faith, is
as a reaction to the failures of scientific arrogance in the 20th
century, moving on from the situation Pirsig describes in the 19th.
When I "preach" against that, I'm proposing the MoQ in its stead, not
a return to the greater evil of faith based certainty, but I am
sophisticated enough to understand the degenerate evolutionary
regression risk you (and Pirsig) point out. Rather than
underestimating what is at stake, I'd say I've been pursuing the
objectivist trap for quite some time as a "major issue of our time"
long before 9/11 put religious fundamentalism in the spotlight, and
long before I'd even heard of the MoQ or even Dawkins or any
neo-Darwinist for that matter. (My main interest in memes is that bad
memes have a tendency to "win", if every game is looked upon as win or
lose.)

Our tactical disagreements seem minor compared to our fundamental agreement.

Ian

On 11/27/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Khaled said earlier:
> Science, by its nature, never claims to be the "TRUTH".
>
> Ian said:
> 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.
>
> dmb says:
> It loks like you've re-phrased my point (that scientific truth is more
> dynamic than religious truth) and put it into the mouths of overly-certain
> abusers of science. You've converted the point into a choice between two
> kinds of evil certainty. But this point is, I think, coming from Pirsig,
> Khaled and myself. I mean, this assertion is about the MOQ's distinction
> between social and intellectual values. While it may be true that Dawkins
> and other scientists are operating on the assumptions of SOM and may be too
> certain about their views, this is also true of those they criticize. We
> can't pick a favorite based on those factors because they are so ubiquitous
> that its a rare treat to find anyone without it.
>
> But this same conflict is addressed by the MOQ and the distinction is made
> on a different basis. In terms of the evolutionary relationship between the
> static levels, yes, being "certain" in scientific truth is better than being
> "certain" of faith-based beliefs. Would you undermine this and call it a
> "trap" in the context it was actually asserted? I mean, would you care to
> address the point if it was unpolluted and undistorted by those unscrupulous
> positivists? If it were made like this?....
>
> DMB said previously:
> ...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. ...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.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
> 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/
>