[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Again Platt, a small but (oft repeated) important qualification ...

The limits of "GOF classical science" I'd say. The limits of science
are contingent, and I see no reason why science should not adopt the
MoQ and push its limits to those of the MoQ - boundless.

This is really just a definitional problem about the current use of
the word "science". I think we're agreeing more than you suggest in
seeming to want to "scoring points' over science. Let's just re-define
science as "the art of rationality" or "enlightened world-craft".

Ian

On 1/2/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Quoting David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> > 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.
>
> Hi David M,
>
> Right on. An excellent expression of the limits of science. Thanks.
>
> Platt
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 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/
>