[MD] The End of Faith Ethics

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve,

[Platt]
> > Pirsig redefines science as the study of social and intellectual 
> > patterns of
> > value? That's news to me. Can you cite a reference?

[Steve quotes Pirsig]
> "If science is a study of substances and their relationships, then the field
> of cultural anthropology is a scientific absurdity. In terms of substance
> there is no such thing as a culture. It has no mass, no energy. No
> scientific laboratory instrument has ever been devised that can distinguish
> a culture from a non-culture.
> 
> But if science is a study of stable patterns of value, then cultural 
> anthropology becomes a supremely scientific field. A culture can be 
> defined as a network of social patterns of value."

[Platt]
Most consider anthropology, like psychology and economics, a science. 
So, Pirsig's "If" clause sets up a straw man. Would Pirsig argue that 
psychology is a supremely scientific field because it studies stable 
patterns of intellectual values? I doubt it.

Rather than argue for a  new science I think Pirsig argues for a new 
metaphysics. It's proponents of scientism who consider them one and the 
same.

Of course, we can always adopt new meanings for a word like science. After 
all, Pirsig has liberated the word "morals" from human social behavior. 
Should we call the MOQ "A Science of Morals?"

Regards,
Platt