[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:

> Inserted Platt
> 
> On 8/14/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > 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
> > > ;-)
> >
> > Oh, oh. For awhile I thought we were avoiding insults. Too good to last, I
> guess.
> 
> [IG] Err, excuse me, who started the "talk about being ... " insults ?

Err, OK. Sorry. 

> > > >  "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".
> >
> > Sorry. I still don't get what you are driving at.
> 
> [IG] So you still can't think of anything I might not appreciate about Rand ?
> (Apart from - freedom good, imposition bad, take personal responsibility)

Well, you've made it pretty clear she is not your favorite author. 

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > "Its (DQ's) only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is
> static
> > quality itself—any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and
> > kill the ongoing free force of life." (Lila, 9) Sounds like freedom is at the
> top
> > of the value hierarchy to me.
> 
> [IG] Look we agree freedom is "good" relative to "any pattern of
> one-sided fixed values" - who wouldn't ? But freedoms come up against
> freedoms too - saying freedom wins doesn't help.

Freedom against freedom? Having trouble thinking of an example. Hope you can 
help.  

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Like what, for example?

> [IG] See above.

Specific examples? Don't see any. Must be all those >>> are blinding me.

> > > > > 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 ?
> >
> > Surely Dennett doesn't support intelligent design as commonly understood, or
> > does he? And does he agree with Pirsig's version of evolution? I don't think
> so
> > from what I've read about his views on the Web.
> 
> [IG] No, of course not intelligent design as "commonly understood" -
> that's why I carefully said - there is "intelligence" in natural
> "design", but no intellgent designer.
> What do you mean by "Pirsig's version of evolution" ?

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Pirsig's version of evolution is laid out
in Chapter 11 of Lila. His version in a nutshell: "Natural selection is Dynamic
Quality at work." 

> > > > > 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 ;-)
> >
> > Maybe so, but would he agree with Pirsig that evolution is against the
> > inanimate forces of nature?

> [IG] "against" is an odd choice of words, but of course, who wouldn't.
> Life starts as soon as we rise above the physical

Pirsig asks in Chap. 11: "If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical
forces of nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to
survive?" Does Dennett answer?

> > > > 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.
> >
> > I don't hold ideological issues as restricted to political arrangements. IMO
> > holding any idea strongly so as to ridicule opponents is an ideology.
> 
> [IG] Hardly. (But you brought the partisan politics into it. Look
> we've acknowleded a dozen times she was an emigre from a totalitarian
> form of socialism to a brave new world of capitalist freedom - and she
> liked it. Big deal, again who wouldn't. Let's not make a manifesto out
> of it.)
> 
> >
> > > > "Strong opinions lightly held" -- describes me to a tee, too. :-)
> > >
> > > [IG] Err no again Platt - see above on ideological dogmas.
> >
> > Err, I beg your pardon. You seem fairly dogmatic about your ideology of
> > low quality dichotomies.
> 
> [IG] Ah yes, the old ones keep coming - I'm dogmatic about having no
> dogmas - the axiom that there are no axioms ... guilty as charged, if
> logic is your only weapon. Personally I prefer values.

Ah yes, I too understand the limits of logic. But, "logical consistency"
is one of Pirsig's criterion of truth, no? (Lila, 8)

Platt


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/