[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Platt Holden]

Arlo:

> [Platt]
> Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside
> science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish the
> validity of it's theories.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course, we never "observe" quarks either, but our science posits that
> they are real. What we observe is small, micro-evolutionary movement that
> demonstrates that pattern adapt and change as they move towards
> "betterness". We can take snapshots of different moments in history and
> propose that changes between two and attributable to the same natural
> processes that we are able to observe.

According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian
evolution appears to be in the same category.

> For example, consider geological evolution. No one was there to "observe"
> the entirety of the process that moved our earth from swirling mass of gas
> and particles to the inter-glacial world we see around us. We infer (or
> abduct, if you will) that there was a process of change, a natural process,
> that was the cause of this transition. But, since at any given point in the
> timeline it would only ever be possible to view this retrospectively, at
> each moment, including our own, it "appears" evolution has stopped. But, as
> I've said, the same inference that allows us to rest comfortably knowing
> the sun will rise tomorrow guides us to see that this process has not
> stopped, it just always appears to be so from any temporal vantage point.
> 
> If you think that "science" is without inference, hypothetical induction or
> abduction, you take a limited view of science that is largely incorrect. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Is Conant's description of science wrong? Or do we make an exception for
> evolution when we bill it as a 'scientific" theory?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not familiar with Conant, or what he may or may not have meant by what
> he said, but given the way you apply it here, Conant would say that Quantum
> Theory lies outside science. A strange this to say.

>From Wikipedia:"James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 - February 11, 1978) 
was a chemist, educational administrator, and government official. He was 
born in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1893 and graduated from the Roxbury 
Latin School in Boston in 1910. He went on to study chemistry at Harvard 
(B.A., 1914; Ph.D., 1917. As a Harvard professor, he worked on both 
physical and organic chemistry. The American Chemical Society honored him 
with its highest prize, the Priestley Medal, in 1944. In 1933, Conant 
accepted an appointment as the President of Harvard University, a post he 
held until 1953. Between 1941 and 1946, he also served as chairman of the 
National Defense Research Committee; from that position he played a key 
role, along with his close friend Vannevar Bush, in ramping up the 
Manhattan Project which developed the first nuclear weapons. After World 
War II he was an advisor to both the National Science Foundation and the 
Atomic Energy Commission."

I think he qualifies as an expert in describing science's methodology. As 
for quantum theory, I believe there have many observations of particle
traces on oscilloscopes to confirm the theory, not to mention the utility
of the theory in computer science. But, I defer to Magnus and others on
observable aspects of quantum theory. 

> [Platt]
> Well, with all due respect to you and Mr. Pirsig, I consider his MOQ to be
> a macro-level evolutionary change in the intellectual level, so much so in
> fact that the intellectual level dominated by SOM is barely recognizable
> from the MOQ perspective.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm sure the Japanese, who Pirsig informs us don't see the fuss we make,
> because they've gotten this all along, are happy to know that _WE_ have
> brought about evolutionary change to the intellectual level. 

Easy for the Japanese to say when  the evidence since WW II points to 
their adoption fo Western SOM metaphysics. Looks to me like they
are devolving. In any case, the Japanese idea of the MOQ is nicely 
described by Pirsig in Lila. "Japanese Zen is attached to social 
discipline so meticulous they make the Puritans look almost degenerate."  
In view of your opinion of religious fundamentalists, I guess this is not 
your idea of the MOQ in action.    

Platt