[MD] The Moral Landscape

[118]

Well put Ham.  I didn't know that Mao had a BA in English composition.

Mark

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Greetings, Steve [Mark, Platt quoted] --
> On 19 Oct 2010 at 6:54 PM. Mark wrote:
>
>> Science is based on a system of equality through measurement.
>> The accurate measurement of truth lies outside in the regions of
>> religion or philosophy or just plain common sense.  Such truth is
>> not derived through scientific methods, but through more intuitive
>> approaches.  Our communication with Quality at a fundamental
>> level is not measurable, it creates the concept of measurement
>> itself.  It is impossible for a calculator to calculate itself.
>>
>
> Platt responded:
>
>> I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's
>> behind the curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what
>> Pirsig observed: "Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is
>> impossible for a calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a
>> discipline that has no values to comprehend values.
>>
>
> To which you said:
>
>> You missed the point as usual.  In the bit you refer to here Pirsig
>> tried to get science to recognize that it actually does have values
>> not to argue that we ought to get rid of science or remind science
>> to stay in its value-neutral place. Instead he wanted to expand
>> the concept of rationality--a root expansion of reason--so it can
>> deal with values and so values can be opened to rational inquiry.
>> What you are arguing against is pretty much Pirsig's main
>> philosophical project in his two books.
>>
>
> When are we ever going to cease complaining about Science, Steve?  The
> knowledge and achievements gleaned from objective science have raised the
> standard of human life substantially over the last 200 years. Pronouncements
> about morality were never the province of Science which has gotten along
> quite well, thank you, without an invasion of moralists determined to reform
> its methodology.
>
> For a philosopher with a bachaleaurate degree in English Composition to
> demand that we "kill the intellectuals...kill them all!" it's the height of
> hypocrisy to suggest that we "expand the concept of rationality...so that it
> can deal with values."  The "values" Science deals with are necessarily
> quantitative and expressed in numbers and equations.  That's what makes
> scientific conclusions efficacious and reliable.  To impose subjective
> precepts about morality on this discipline would only destroy its usefulness
> and set human thinking back to the 16th century.
>
> Morality is a societal code derived from subjective value-judgments that
> have nothing to do with validating objective truths or defining universal
> laws.  Indeed, moral behavior is indigenous to the local culture, and any
> attempt to establish a moral system that works for all mankind is bound to
> fail.  This is why the U.S. has been unsuccessful in nation-building aimed
> at turning backward nations like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan into democratic
> republics.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>