[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[David M]

DMB/Ian

A point I'd like to add: Yes science is successful
at describing the world we experience, but one reason
it is successful, and is very dangerous to forget, is that
science simplifies experience. Instead of the full range
of qualities it deals only with those that fit its methods,
such as quantity as this can be measured, repeated,
modelled by maths, and used to control the behaviour
of things. As MOQ tells us, there is much more to life
than understanding and controlling patterns. Much of life
is unique and without pattern. Hence we have fiction,
history, art, etc, and the knowledge that goes with them.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist


> DMB (and Case, and David M, and Platt) ...
>
> DMB I'm disappointed you move away from the specifics to generalise
> and throw in aspertions about me personally and my thinking generally
> (that's the kind of ad-hominem approach that should be censored by
> Horse) ... let's go back to the specific again ...
>
> (1) You missed the sentence after the one you quoted (my main point as
> I said) "The real point is "blind" faith in authoritity (a purely
> social quality), something science avoids." Something I'd hope you'd
> agree with.
>
> (2) You attributed to me "For all its objectivism, science also relies
> on an absence of evidence (in its methods)." I didn't say that. Please
> listen up.
>
> (3) You phrased the same point as a request. "Explain to me how the
> scienctific method is based on faith."
>
> I say what you cannot see is the "belief in scientific method as a
> matter of faith" is something quite distinct from the (clearly dumb)
> idea that "scientfic method is based on faith". If I'd expressed the
> dumb idea, you'd have a point.
>
>>From where I stand Dawkins is "dogmatic" about the right approach
> being scientific method. Every idea is contingent to explanation and
> expirical testing according to scientific method, except the very idea
> that scientific method is the only correct approach.
>
> A very subtle point I'll grant you, and I'm the first to defend the
> content of scientific method as the highest quality approach, given
> other lower quality faith-based alternatives. But that does not mean
> that the choice of scientific method is the only approach to all
> situations ever. That would be a dogmatic assertion.
>
> Platt, points you made, that are relevant here ... I paraphrase for now ?
> "Scientific method (and DMB) would not deny basic cause-effect
> consequences" I think you said, and you also said something like
> "Everything is amenable to reductionism". These are classical
> misconceptions that we need to unpick ....
>
> This mail has not the space to do it.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 12/29/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ian glendinning said:
>> ...It's not the faith, but the kind of faith that matters. For all its
>> objectivism, science also relies on faith (in its methods). It still has
>> mysterious beliefs at its boundaries. The real point is "blind" faith in
>> authoritity (a purely social quality), something science avoids.
>>
>> dmb says:
>> Science relies on faith and has mysterious beliefs? Yes, so you have said
>> many times and I have disagreed nearly as many. I can only assume that 
>> you
>> mean something other than faith when you use the word "faith". The 
>> meaning
>> of that term is such that your assertions here are nonsense. If faith is 
>> a
>> belief held in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of the 
>> evidence,
>> then your first sentence would read something like... "It's not the
>> unsupported belief, but the kind of unjustified view that matters." Your
>> second assertion would have to say something like... "For all its
>> objectivism, science also relies on an absence of evidence (in its
>> methods)." And, because I'm using the normal definition for the word 
>> "faith"
>> here, I fail to see the difference between faith and "blind" faith. Its 
>> okay
>> if your point is simply to add some emphasis or whatever, but as I
>> understand the term, all faith is blind.
>>
>> So, as you can imagine, I don't just disagree about these particular 
>> points
>> when you say stuff like this. It also makes me skeptical about your 
>> ability
>> to reason or think in general. I mean, its just seems really, really 
>> dumb.
>> Please, help me out here. Explain to me how the scienctific method is 
>> based
>> on faith. Explain it to me. In what sense does science have mysterious
>> beliefs? I could be mistaken, but these notions look like drivel to me. I
>> suspect you are being sloppy and are treating starting points, 
>> assumptions
>> and such as if they were acts of faith. Or maybe you think a faith based
>> belief is anything that we hold in the absense of absolute certainty or 
>> some
>> other impossible standard. I don't know. You tell me. I'm just guessing. 
>> All
>> I know is, according to my understanding of faith, science and the 
>> english
>> language, your comments make no sense. Again.
>>
>> dmb
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
>> Sales & Deals
>> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
> 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/
>