[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[ian glendinning]

Platt et al,

The most recent BBC "In Our Time" is about Microbes and Microbiology
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

Covers many of the points being debated here about post-Darwinian
evolution mechanisms now (and past) in microbes of all kinds. Worth a
listen.

Ian

On 3/8/07, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/
>