[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

At 03:43 PM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>Science is conventional knowledge and IS based on
>conceptual constructs all the way down.  I never said that makes
>science useless, only that it is not a reflection of ultimate
>reality.  And we've been though the fact that underpinning science
>today is politics and economics which does affect pattern bias.
>
>[Krimel]
>What I keep trying to impress on you is that all knowledge is conventional
>and conceptual all the way down. This is not at issue. The issue is what
>sort of conceptual framework best captures the dynamic flow of perception,
>of experience. What is the fewest number of concepts we can find to explain
>the greatest amount of experience.
>
>With regard to politics and economics you continue to confuse science as a
>social phenomena with science as an intellectual enterprise. Science as
>science, intellectually rejects both politics and economics as influences
>but as a matter of social practice they have their effects. Both scientists
>and the MoQ claim that this social intrusion on and intellectual pursuit is
>unfortunate and immoral.

[Marsha:]
Unfortunate, immoral and an often active pattern.



> >[Krimel]
> > In fact I spelled out explicitly that I agree with a particular
> > scientific approach to the question you asked. To wit:
> >the causes of behavior and I would adding thoughts are:
> >
> >1) Biology
> >2) Personal History
> >3) Present circumstances
> >
> >Thinking and acting are processes that result for these three "causes".

[Marsha:]
Your statement that I originally questioned was "Intellect is a 
biological function..." It seemed to me that you were reducing 
intellect to brain chemistry.  But, of course, later you stated this 
was a conceptual construct, you wrote "knowledge is conventional and 
conceptual all the way down".  So what is 'brain chemistry' except a 
conceptual construct, a pattern.  And all correlations and causes are 
also conceptual constructs, patterns.  Right?



>[Marsha]
>Based on what?   Now if you want to define science as whatever you
>think, that's fine with me.  In that case, I will even apologize for
>expecting an answer accompanied by or pointing to some kind of evidence.
>
>[Krimel]
>I am not defining science as whatever I think. I am defining whatever I say
>here as whatever I think. As I keep saying; I attempt, as do most here, to
>offer reasons why you should think as I do. Isn't that the point of having a
>forum.
>
>For evidence of why I think what I said above, try "Behaviorism" by John
>Watson, although he focused mainly on the classical conditioning model he
>lays the ground for what followed. B.F. Skinner's "Science and Human
>Behavior" offers and exhaustive treatment of the subject and Skinner is
>surprisingly readable. He originally planned to be a writer. His B.A. is in
>English and it shows.
>
>Skinner was very dubious about "thinking" but thought that, to the extent
>that it could be defined, it too is control by the environment. Aaron Beck's
>Cognitive Behavioral Therapy fairly successfully attempts to directly apply
>the principles of behavioral control specifically to thinking.
>
>In the mean time you might actually address what I said. Do you think the
>three point above are adequate? Are there too many causes? Not enough? What
>would you add? What would you subtract?

[Marsha:]
I cannot answer your questions.  I do not know.   My best answer 
would be that 'thinking' is a combination of inorganic, biological, 
social and intellectual static patterns of value.  I'm curious that's 
why I asked you to explain what you meant by stating that 'thinking' 
was a biological function.  What you think is interesting.



>Marsha
>Not a very strong case, yet you seem to assume all the prestige of
>Science and the scientific method.
>
>[Krimel]
>Not a strong case and yet you avoid the points made in favor of what you
>assume I assume or what you think I am thinking or how you think about what
>you think I am thinking about. You ask the occasional question and I provide
>my thoughts on the answer. You ask good questions and I try to give good
>answers but in the end it devolves into this...


Interesting.  You don't understand my questions.  You're so cute when 
you are confused.


Marsha




.
_____________

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