[MD] Noncognitive babble

[MarshaV]

Btw, I was listening to an interview with Garry Parsons who 
was a coauthor with Stephen Hawking on the new book 'The Grand 
Design.'  The interview was on a pbs program.  One of the last statements 
Parsons made was "Philosophy is dead!"  He then went on to say that 
philosophy cannot tell us anything about the world we live in.

Pretty arrogant, yes?    
 


Marsha  






On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:43 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Interesting, and reminded me of asking how many angels can 
> dance on the head of a pin.  But fun!  And I image it has created  a 
> quattuordecillion opportunities for papers to be published. And one 
> can only wonder about those 'ideal conditions'?  Interesting... 
> 
> I have often wondered about the difference between a static 
> pattern of value representing a conventional truth (Tim is a 
> human.)  and a static pattern of value representing a 
> conventional judgement (Tim is an hypocrite), or something 
> like that. 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Steven Peterson wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> 20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to
>> Pirsig. Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more
>> distance from the positivists, I wonder how young people today would
>> read Pirsig's attacks on the fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder
>> just who it is Pirsig thinks he is arguing against?
>> Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a
>> straw man. If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least
>> at some point it will be a straw man, right?  Someday young people
>> just won't even know what Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got
>> into Pirsig, I really felt like the notion of objectivity was being
>> used to push values into some realm of noncognitive babble. Is that
>> still happening today?
>> 
>> Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to
>> the dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary
>> Putnam who also made such critiques on SOM:
>> 
>> http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm
>> 
>> (1) No statement is both evaluative and factual.
>> 
>> (2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual statements.
>> 
>> (3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any value judgments.
>> 
>> (4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy.
>> 
>> (5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false.
>> 
>> 
>> Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig,
>> Putnam, and the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been
>> successful?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Steve
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___