[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Bringing in my response to Craig's contribution this may have run it's
course Platt .... but my responses inserted ....

On 8/14/07, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > Platt, my mind is not "made up", I have opinions about what I have
> > read in the past 50 years, a continuously evolving reading list from
> > small beginnings.
>
> Doesn't everybody? Talk about being blindly obvious.

[IG] Yeah, yeah, your usual rhetorical trick of splitting up the
paragraph so that the actual point is left dangling after your
insertion - but you acknowledge "strong views lightly held" eventually
;-)

>
>  "Strong opinions lightly-held" as I've expressed it
> > before - I'm asking you to point out what I missed ... just one thing
> > will do .... in Rand. I don't know everything, no-one does, so I
> > assume there is something you know that I don't, there must be ;-)
>
> Not being a mind-reader I don't know what you don't know.

[IG] Oh but you are and you do Platt, and a very good one too, as
would anyone be with whom 20 odd e-mails per week have been exchanged
over 5 years or more. Some of those mails explicitly told you what I
"knew" about Rand ... that was the point ... to ask "tell me something
I'm not saying".

>
> > So "she is in favor of forbidding the initiation of force by anyone on
> > another" is she ?
> >
> > Tell me something that is not already blindingly obvious in just about any
> > Randian paragraph you care to choose, and not already covered by my summary
> > above. She likes freedom, she doesn't like imposition of force. She's not
> > alone there.
> >
> > But in practice (real life) force (limitations to freedom) do have to
> > be imposed - no ? Social over biological in Pirsigian terms ... higher
> > quality social patterns over other social patterns - no ? What does Rand
> > have to say about this other than the juvenile conclusion that freedom is
> > good - accept no substitute. Mill understood this much better already.
>
> Well, if Mill understood it, what's your problem with it? Pirsig
> understands in too. Freedom is at the top of his moral hierarchy.

[IG] Saying it is "at the top of a hierarchy" is the over
simplification. It's in play at many points in "the hierarchies", and
often finds itself in conflict with other freedoms. Pirsig and Hume
(and plenty of others) recognised this. Rand prefers ignorance.

>
> > The only other thing significant I've found Rand saying is to take
> > personal responsibility for your own philosophy of life - can't argue
> > with that either. As some fella called Socrates already said sometime
> > before her emigration - the unexamined life ain't worth living.
>
> So what do you argue with Rand about? Seems she reaffirms all your
> beliefs. :-)

[IG] As I said to Craig. All the easy bits yes, but no clue about the
hard bits. Where freedoms conflict and come up against relative values
of reality.

>
> > You say "Pirsig is not all that enamored of the Darwinian explanation".
> > Jeez - again - repeat after me - Darwin is NOT the last word in
> > evolutionary explanations - it's good that Pirsig (and a million other
> > neo-Darwinian philosophers, biologists and anthropologists) noticed this.
> > Darwin was "mostly right" with his survival and fitness in the face of
> > largely "random" change - but not "wholly right" - no-one ever will be
> > "wholly right". Some of the natural explanations of evolutionary process
> > even support what might  be described on Lamarkian principles (there are
> > processes by which inheritance of acquired attributes could be said to
> > occur, but you have to look at the whole sexual-reproductive / development
> > cycle). Even naturally "intelligently directed" explanations - I mentioned
> > already - look at spandrels & sky-hooks, look at natural re-engineering -
> > the processes are awesomely many and varied on many inter-related levels
> > across extended phenotypes and eco-systems - including mental ones.
>
> How about looking at intelligent design? And what neo-Dawinists, pray
> tell, agree with Pirsig about "moral evolution."

[IG] Not sure I get your point. I've mentioned "intelligent design"
three times in this thread already - but it's a tricky subject
definitionally, hijacked by some dubious factions. Intelligence is
natural there is intelligence in natural "designs" (aka "spandrells"),
but be careful with "designer" metaphors. Moral evolution ? As i go on
to say ... Freedom (your highest moral) Evolves ... will that do ?

>
> > Don't presmue Dennett would laugh at Pirsig's moral evolutionary
> > drivers - when you're read "Darwin Dangerous Idea" try reading
> > "Breaking the Spell" and read E.O.Wilson too if you haven't already.
>
> Doggone it, there's no library within a 100 miles of my house that has a
> copy of Dennett's book. I'm going on the web now to see what I can find
> out about the  'dangerous idea" and if there is any hint that Dennett
> might buy into Pirsig's metaphysics.
>
> > BTW Dennett wrote on freedom too - "Freedom Evolves" - but the he
> > would say that, wouldn't he, like any good Pirsigian ;-)
>
> Well, like any good Pirsigian, Rand believed freedom was a high value,
> better than socialist alternatives. How about that?

[IG] Err no Platt. Lets leave ideological issues out of this. Freedom
has no simple absolute authority that decides every case by itself -
it can't fail to bump up against other freedoms in any of the layers,
inlcuding the social.

>
> "Strong opinions lightly held" -- describes me to a tee, too. :-)

[IG] Err no again Platt - see above on ideological dogmas.

>
> Platt
>
>
> > On 8/14/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > > Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hardly ;-)
> > > >
> > > > So nothing in particular - difference for it's own sake - another
> > > > binary argument ?
> > > > Nothing that those differences specifically adds to a better
> > > > understanding - of MoQ or anything else ?
> > > >
> > > > As I say I found Rand very "irrational" and totally lacking in any
> > > > analysis or "insight". An understandable reaction af a Russian emigre
> > > > to her erstwhile homeland "communism" in her new-found home of
> > > > "capitalism". One extreme considered only in the light of an opposing
> > > > extreme. So one dimensional and childishly simplistic (and dangerously
> > > > mis-informed / ignorant of significant wider experience) - capitalist
> > > > freedoms good - state interference bad - Doh !
> > > >
> > > > Did it need a million words and a dozen books to express that ?
> > > > Socrates, Bacon, Hume, Mill and many more ancients ... the qualities of
> > > > freedom and responsibility are not new concepts ... the difficult bit
> > > > is where values indicate limits to absolute freedom .... where the
> > > > rubber meets the road of real life.
> > >
> > > Obviously we have a difference of opinion as to value of Rand's work. The
> > > fact that her books keep selling at an unusual rate for a philosopher
> > > tells me she speaks to a need among the populace looking for guidance. As
> > > for absolute freedom, if you had read her material carefully you would
> > > know she is in favor of forbidding the initiation of force by anyone on
> > > another. But, there's little to be gained by pointing out such things
> > > since your mind is made up about the folly of applying her principles to
> > > "real life." So be it. You may be right.
> > >
> > > > Dennett is just one of many pragmatic philosophers (James most
> > > > obviously, but many) that can "add" to an understanding of Pirsig's
> > > > attempt at Darwinian evolutionary framework of values and the processes
> > > > by which conflicting demands are dealt with..
> > >
> > > I will reserve judgment on Dennett until I read the book you recommended.
> > > But, as you know, Pirsig is not all that enamored of the Darwinian
> > > explanation of evolution. I presume Dennet would laugh at Pirsig's
> > > "moral" explanation.
> > >
> > > Platt
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 8/14/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > > > > Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nice try Platt, I've done plenty of Randian research on the subject
> > > > > > .... the publishers of her books sell her philosophical resources
> > > > > > pretty hard .... hard to ignore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your own words, why did YOU recommend "Atlas Shrugged" to a
> > > > > > MoQ'er - what relevant message did YOU want ME / US to get ? I
> > > > > > remain at a complete loss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple. Because it gives a different and often opposing worldview to
> > > > > the MOQ in highly rational form, worthy of intellectual consideration
> > > > > by anyone interested in philosophy. If this forum was merely a
> > > > > hosanna to Pirsig's metaphysics, I would have departed long ago. It
> > > > > is the arena of ideas that interests me, and I find Pirsig, Rand,
> > > > > James, Paglia, Ham and many others to have interesting insights into
> > > > > how the world works, just as you find Dennett and I'm sure others to
> > > > > be of value to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this sufficiently answers your question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Platt
>
> 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/
>