[MD] The dirty doors of perception?

[118]

Hi All,

dmb presents some findings is science in the post below.  A little
earlier he claimed that science does not answer questions.  I believe
there is some incongruity here.

In terms of RMPs argument against science, may I present the following
observation for your consideration:  The argument that RMP uses lies
in the underlying promise of science that for every question more are
created in an exponential fashion questions.  More specifically he
states that science can never resolve a hypothesis, therefore it is
not useful.  However, let me present to you that this was never the
purpose of science.

His argument is to set forth a paradox which is meant to convince
readers of the ineffective posture of science.  Historically paradoxes
were used effectively by Xeno.  For example, he used such paradox
methodology to prove that there was no movement, or that it was
impossible to reach B from A.  The trouble with the use of paradoxes
such as these, and the ones which RMP presents is that they are
misleading.  For certainly we believe that there is movement, and that
we can reach our destinations.

Therefore, it is important to address these forms of arguments with
some critical thinking.  Are they really correct with their
conclusions?  In other words, is what RMP states about science a
convincing argument.  I would have to argue that it is not.  I
certainly understand the point that RMP is making.  That is to take
science down from its pedestal.  Something I am in favor of.  However,
the broad stroke with which he does so, is not convincing.  There are
much better arguments.

This is, of course, my opinion, and I have been a scientist for many
many years.  As a member of that group, I have had to employ critical
thinking in all my daily work.  This thinking is no different from
philosophy.  I do believe that the layman has far too much confidence
in science, since it is only a form of metaphysics.  That is, it
presents a model for the underlying nature of things.  Through the
ages, we have found the metaphysics of science to be quite useful in
terms of decreasing human suffering.  Science does have its dark side
as well.  I am speaking as a scientist who knows the messy conditions
in which any theory is advanced.  The theory that takes hold is a
temporary projection that will always change.

In my opinion, it is useful to view science from this metaphysical
point of view.  It gives perspective as to what science really is.  It
is a belief system with which we can project a certain reality.  The
current modern trend towards elevating scientists to the level of
priests is somewhat distressing.  For they are priests no different
from the priests of the Aztecs, or Christian Church.  If they are
given too much power, certain elements of politics, sociology, and
psychology fall under their spell.  Their theories are used to sway
people's thinking in ways which are unethical.

Everything that science teaches us today will, in the future be seen
as inadequate.  This will progress as such forever.  However, that is
the way science progresses, from one quality to another.  Science is
in the spirit of MoQ at its heart.  Each scientific truth provided is
provisional and conditional.  It was never meant to be otherwise.

Science is one application of radical empiricism.  The tools used are
exactly the same.  If one disagrees with this then they do not
understand the scientific method.

Best regards,
Mark

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dan said to dmb:
> I thought this quote from the article was interesting as well: "Most pertinent ... is William James with his notion of sciousness which comes in contrast to consciousness. The former consists of pure experience only, the latter involves knowledge of experience. ..."  This is where RMP seems to expand on James by saying that Dynamic Quality is both undefined and infinitely definable. Rather than isolating pure experience from the knowledge of experience, he is marrying them... pure experience comes before the moment of intellectualization... it is the cutting edge of reality, always new, always a surprise. The knowledge of that pure experience grows from that moment in a continuous stream of consciousness.
>
>
> dmb says:
> The most recent neurological studies are lending support to the observations James was making back in 1890, in his psychology book, and it increasingly makes guys like Plato, Kant, Freud look pretty bad. Researchers like Antonio Damasio have shown that we literally can't think right without emotion, affect, instinct and the like. Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" seems to be making a big splash for saying what James said a long time ago.
> From Jonah Lehrer's pop-science book, "How We Decide":
> "One of the first scientists to defend this view of decision-making was William James, the great American psychologist. In his seminal 1890 textbook The Principles of Psychology, James launched into a critique of the standard 'rationalist' account of the human mind. ...the Platonic view of decision-making, which idealized man as a purely rational animal defined 'by the almost total absence of instincts,' was utterly mistaken. ...According to James, the mind contained two distinct thinking systems, one that was rational and deliberate and another that was quick, effortless, and emotional. The key to making decisions, James said, was knowing when to rely on which system."
>
> "It's been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an understanding of nature's order which was as yet unknown. Now it's time to further an understanding of nature's order by reassimilating those passions which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part. ...We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly." (Robert Pirsig in ZAMM)
> 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