[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Absolutely David,

Science deals in a (necessarily) simplified model of the world.
A good deal of reality doesn't "fit" that model.

(Strange, in data modelling, part of my day job, a common refrain is
not to forget your data model is "only" a model. Many a programmer is
dismayed when his users find the real-world results disappointing)

This is where I tend to slip in the quote from Cornflowers
"Too blue for neat axioms" etc.
Ian

On 1/2/07, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>
>
> 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/
>