[MD] Science Wars

[MarshaV]

At 06:35 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>2009/4/22 MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
>
> >
> > Greetings Will,
> >
> > There is no true me.  (T)ruth is the discovery that I am false.  Yes?
> >
>
>  you are a pattern of value - and you said all patterns are true - are you
>eating your words now?

Greetings KO,

It is a matter of conventionally true and Absolutely 
True.  Conventionally, I am (boringly) an ever-changing, collection 
of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and 
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic 
Quality.  That would be the uncapitalized version of true.  (T)rue 
with a capitalized 'T' is that the _independent (inherent) existence_ 
of such a self is false because it has dependent origination and is a 
conceptual construct.  The 'self's' existence is dependent on 
thought.  There is no contradiction, but I may be very poor at explaining.



>I just want it to be understood clearly,neutrinos and oxytocin aside, that
> > Science has investigated and studied how to manufacture desire, manufacture
> > the "wanting", public manipulation; advertising and propaganda, baloney and
> > garbage, are the child of Science too.
> >
> > For a metaphysics that is suppose to be grounded in Radical Empiricism and
> > Pragmaticism, how is one suppose to act on information created by Science
> > when it cannot be experienced and is profit-driven? Trust?  Is this an
> > unimportant question?  Maybe this should be answered by those who want to
> > say that Scientific patterns are more than just conceptual 
> constructs.  What
> > does Science know, and how does it know it?
> >
>
>The scientific method is sound - if science has a bad side it is through its
>misuse by the people who do that science.

Science uses many methods having the similar problem of 'affirming 
the antecedent'.   I know, I've heard all that rigamarole about 
simplicity, elegance and beauty, but that's just a human value, a 
conventional prejudice.  The better answer may be complicated and 
messy, or seem complicated and mess because of our lack of better 
understanding.



>Science did not invent gravity - but science makes gravity more useful since
>we understand better how it behaves

Which gravity, Newton's or Einstein's?   Gravity, in either case, is 
just a useful conceptual construct, abstract patterns of 
value.  There is no such independent thing.  If you think it is 
something else, please explain what it is.



Marsha





.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.