[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[Platt Holden]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> [Platt]
> Your view is that the only legitimate "honest inquiry" is one that adheres
> to
> the assumptions and methods of SOM science. Fine for acquiring knowledge
> about
> inorganic and biological patterns. No argument there. But, not so good for
> social, intellectual and artistic patterns. And, no good at all for
> determining
> the value of anything.
>
> [Krimel]
> That is not what I have been saying at all. You keep interpreting the
> Academy to mean "science." Science is only one part of the Academy which
> include the pursuit of all sorts of knowledge wisdom and expression.
>
> [Platt]
That's not what I've been saying at all about the academy. I've been saying
departments in the academy strive to establish their particular type of
knowledge by using science's methods which are based a series of
assumptions, including the overriding assumption of SOM. Unless the
purported knowledge is established "scientifically," it is relegated to the
realm of subjective opinion, the purview of the liberal arts departments.
When it comes to "expression," all God's chillun pursue it, while "wisdom,"
if it exists at all, resides in elderly individuals.


> [Krimel said]
> Journalists have their own set of ethical guidelines for determining what
> is
> worth reporting, how to report on differences of opinion and for assessing
> standards of truth.
>
> [Platt]
> Lawyers follow strict rules of argument and evidence, politicians are held
> to
> account by the electorate, purveyors of propaganda exist in the eye of the
> beholder with journalists among the purveyors.
>
> [Krimel]
> Both lawyers and politician as I said are sophists advancing a particular
> point of view to the exclusion of or denigration of other points of view. A
> journalist's professional obligation is to present both sides or disputes
> in
> a way that does justice to both. To the extent that that fail in this and
> become "purveyors" they fail as journalists. Fox News is the first "news"
> organization I am aware of that elevates this failure to the status of
> virtue.
>

[Platt]
As if scientists and teachers aren't biased like everyone else and don't
seek to denigrate
other points of view, mostly disproved behind closed doors but out there for
all to see in
the dispute about global warming. As for Fox News, liberals are deathly
afraid of its fair
and balanced approach.


> [Platt]
> Appears you equate "honest inquiry" with the academy and the academy with
> wisdom. Talk about hutzpah. As for sacrificing material comforts, there are
> millions of hard working people struggling to make ends meet who would love
> to
> get vacations every five or six weeks, three months off every summer, a
> year
>
> long sabbatical every seven years or so, and a guaranteed job for life.
>
> [Krimel]
> So perhaps they ought to consider the sacrifices needed to enter into
> teaching worth the effort. Or perhaps they should move to France or some
> other enlightened democracy where personal and family values are taken
> seriously instead of merely talked about then pissed on.
>

[Platt]
Maybe they should instead of, let's say, the sacrifices needed to become a
military commander able to rescue countries like France from authoritarian
occupation.

[Platt]
> You mean science is skeptical of and constantly questions their assumptions
> of
> determinism, reductionism, materialism, and emergentism? I'd love to see
> some
> evidence.
>
> [Krimel]
> Pick up a copy of "Science" or "Nature" or any such journal.
>


[Platt]
Can't produce any evidence, eh? OK, I understand.



> [Platt]
> You mean to tell me that practitioners of the disciplines you mention think
> but
> don't believe they think about things? Who is doing all this "honest
> inquiry"
> if it isn't a subject looking at object data? That reminds me: we can add
> another assumption of SOM science -- externalism.
>
> [Krimel]
> The ways that people characterize this process are legion. Subject/object
> is
> just one of them. Some in say the theology department might hold for
> example
> that thoughts are reflections of the mind of God.
>

[Platt}
The source of SOM is not the issue. I guess you would claim the source is
the brain.
Whatever the source, the process is the same -- subjects observing objects,
a.k.a.,
 I think, therefore I am.

[Platt]
> In the annals of history much knowledge has been gained and many inventions
> made outside the academy. The larger drug companies have their own research
> departments.
>
> [Krimel]
> Corporations like drug companies typically do independent research to
> expand
> on the discoveries that results from academic research. They seek to
> commercialize and expand on potentially profitable avenues of research.
> This
> is not at all the same thing as the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
>
> [Platt]
An example of a corporation that pursues knowledge "for its own sake" is
Bell Labs
whose "pursuit" has been rewarded with seven Nobel Prizes in Physics. I
certainly
don't knock the contributions of the academy in the physical sciences. But
in the
liberal arts they have little to contribute of value


> [Platt]
> Your list of artists who have used advances within the academy is
> unconvincing without evidence.
>
> [Krimel]
> Then let me expand my statement to include ALL artists. Artist rely
> entirely
> on the fruits of technology for the production of their art. From cave
> paintings to webisodes, art is expressed through technology.
>

[Platt]
We all rely on technology for everything if you want to put it that way. But
from the
academy? Don't think an academy was around when those caves were painted.


> [Platt]
> As for who "exploits" whom, the prize goes to
> the academy who exploits the profits of enterprise, either granted
> voluntarily
> or, in many cases, by coercion. Where do you think those multi-billion
> dollar
> endowments come from? Where do you think those multi-billions are invested?
>
> [Krimel]
> Actually I suspect that if the government insisted on retaining the right
> to
> income from the discoveries it has financed, taxation would be a thing of
> the past. Satellite communication is an example, it is simply would not
> exist at all without government funding for research and development. I
> remember with the original Telstar satellite was launched and the money it
> was suppose to generate was to be put back into funding public
> broadcasting.
> But the technology was instead turned over to private enterprise for free.
> Like the discoveries of basic medical research this is nothing but
> corporate
> welfare.
>

[Platt]
Paid for by corporate and other taxpayer dollars. The government doesn't
finance anything. We do.

 [Platt]

> Or ask anyone who was machine-gunned in WWI, or anyone who was gassed in a
> shower room in WWII, or anyone leaped to his death from the Twin Towers on
> 9/11.
>
> [Krimel]
> Odd that the value of society and human life always come down to a question
> of quantity for you. Ok, do the math. In 1940 the population of the planet
> was about 2 billion people. Today it is about 7 billion. That is 5 billion
> people alive today and living under much better conditions than ever
> before.
> Your litany of death camps, genocides and technological terror total aren't
> even a drop in that bucket.
>

[Platt]
That's a cold-blooded SOM scientist talking. The same logic applies when the
elderly are denied medical care because the money would be better used to
care for the more numerous young.


> [Platt]
> The problem of honest inquiry a.k.a SOM science that I and Pirsig refer to
> is
> expressed well in this passage from Lila:
>
> "In the time that Phaedrus grew up, intellect was dominant over society,
> but
>
> the results of the new social looseness weren't turning out as predicted.
> Something was wrong. The world was no doubt in better shape intellectually
> and
> technologically but despite that, somehow, the "quality" of it was not
> good.
>
> There was no way you could say why this quality was no good. You just felt
> it.
> Sometimes you could see little fragments of reflections of what was wrong
> but
> they were just fragments and you couldn't put them together. He remembered
> seeing The Glass Menagerie, by Tennessee Williams, in which one edge of the
> stage had an arrow-shaped neon sign flashing on and off, on and off, and
> beneath the arrow was the word, "PARADISE," also flashing on and off.
> Paradise,
> it kept saying, is right where this arrow points:
> PARADISE "> PARADISE "> PARADISE ">
> But the Paradise was always somewhere pointed to, always somewhere else.
> Paradise was never here. Paradise was always at the end of some
> intellectual,
> technological ride, but you knew that when you got there paradise wouldn't
> be
> there either. You would just see another sign saying:
> PARADISE C> PARADISE "> PARADISE >" (Lila, 22)
>
> [Krimel]
> I'm with Don Henley on this one:
> "They call it paradise. I don't know why.
> You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye."
>
> Paradise is right here right now. If you aren't happy right here right now
> it seem unlikely to me that you are going to be transformed into a happy
> person in some other time in some other place. It has nothing to do with
> technology or the lack of it.
>
> [Platt}
You disagree with Pirsig's observation? I assume you do.

[Platt]
> Much good in the physical sense has come from SOM science and technology,
> but
> but it's a brittle good without knowledge or even awareness of an
> independent
> moral order.
>
> [Krimel]
> If anything has contributed to the disintegration of moral order it would
> be
> capitalism's emphasis on greed and the exploitation of others and the
> environment. Gordon Gekko is making a comeback. Technology in the evil
> sense
> that you see it, becomes evil to the extent that it facilitates this kind
> of
> economic manipulation of values.
>

[Platt]
You also disagree with with Pirsig's support of capitalism? I assume you
do.
Without profits there would be no technology. Humanity would still be in
caves.