[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Fernando Farah]

New Model Army

> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:13:30 -0600> From: psybertron at gmail.com> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist> > 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/> >> 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/
_________________________________________________________________
Busque em qualquer página da Web com alta proteção. Obtenha o Windows Live Toolbar GRATUITO ainda hoje!
http://toolbar.live.com/