[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[David M]

Hi Platt

I don't expect science to have any say about what values
are best. Values differ, we have to learn how we can live together
given our different values, this is the stuff of politics rather than 
science.
We need intelligent ways to look at how to assess our different values.
Pirsig's levels and notion of quality is one useful way to look at values.
Religion and secularism have their own ways of looking at values
and that just arn't going to be ignored or overcome in a hurry.
We need to get honest about our disagreements about values and
stop pretending they have anything to do with truth and that anyone
has any privileged access to some truth-values that are superior.
Of course we can claim point to how our values relate to experience
and reality but this is never going to make a decisive case.
Of course, where we have values of autonomy and equality they are
going to conflict with authoritarian and hierarchical values.

Regards
David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pholden at davtv.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method


> Quoting David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>> Hi Platt
>>
>> Obviously we do not ask science to describe
>> our aesthetic experiences, so yes, it has its obvious
>> limits. The 'ruthless control' is something being pushed
>> out of science's description of nature these days so
>> Pirsig's suggestion is no longer really true about the
>> most progressive science today although science has yet to
>> fully overcome SOM limitations it is on the road to do so I'd suggest.
>
> Hi David,
>
> To my knowledge "survival of the fittest" (ruthless control) has yet to
> be revoked by biologists, nor do I see any evidence that science is ready
> to provide moral guidance. But, I could be wrong.
>
>> And then there will be plenty of room for human and quality choices
>> to be taken as valid.
>
> Yes. But without some agreed upon standards to guide "quality choices,"
> there's plenty of room for arguments over which choices are "valid" and
> which are not. One need only witness the shenanigan of our current 
> politicians
> in Congress to know the problem.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>> >> Hi Jos/Platt
>> >>
>> >> Platt said:
>> >>
>> >> By and large science looks for "mechanisms," not entities
>> >> capable of  expressing choices.
>> >>
>> >> DM: Here is the heart of the matter but I ask why should this
>> >> be a problem? Mechanism only implies a pattern where there
>> >> is only one possible outcome, all other forms of behaviour have
>> >> many possible outcomes and where we can ascribe a purpose
>> >> in selecting certain outcomes over others we call this life or agency.
>> >
>> > It's a problem because of its limits. A Beethoven sonata is a lot more
>> > than sound waves striking an ear drum, a Homer watercolor a lot more 
>> > than
>> > pigment on paper.
>> >
>> >> Of course, science has moved on from its devotion to mechanism
>> >> as Jos says, quantum theory being the science of the possible par
>> >> excellence.
>> >
>> > Quantum theory is limited to the very small and leaves many questions
>> > unanswered.
>> > As Pirsig wrote, "So today we have have as a result a theory of 
>> > evolution
>> > in which
>> > 'man' is ruthlessly controlled by the cause-and-effect laws of the
>> > universe while
>> > the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to be
>> > neglected."
>> > (Lila, 11)
>> >
>> > Platt
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 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/
>