[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Fri May 22 12:09:49 PDT 2015

Ron, Jan and all,

Science sees itself outside of the rhetorical game?  Sort of.  Perhaps
another way of saying it is that science sees it's rhetorical games as of a
very special class.  That pertaining to actual reality.  When science does
this, it's making a big mistake.

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> This is what was very interesting about the article from my point of view.
> Science sees itself as outside the rhetorical game. Therefore it does not
> utilize the art of persuasion as effectively because it assumes the facts
> speak for themselves , the facts
> Themselves should be convincing enough. However, experience shows that
> this not enough and sadly science is losing the battle in the arena of
> public opinion.
> > On May 20, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Jan, John ,
> >  I think the idea being expressed In that quote John posted is that what
> often is passed as "fact" is often opinion or point of view. An assumption
> . However, facts or truth in scientific terms is verifiable in experience.
> Often that quote or idea is popularly misapplied in academic environments
> today.
> > -Ron
> >
> >> On May 20, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <
> jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi JC
> >>
> >> Doesn’t that show the dichotomy between a social moral, which is
> defined by a group excluding other groups, and the intellectual moral
> level, where scientific concepts are the same for any individual?
> >>

it can lead a hasty interpretation in that direction, Jan-anders, but a
closer examination shows a deeper truth - that the distinction between
social and intellectual is non-absolute.  that is, the line between is
more dualistic and relational than distinct and oppositional.  At least
from an enlightened point of view!  Which I take as an assumption, here.

It is also problematic, for me, to assume the 4th level (as we
conceptualize it for convenience) to be ruled by science.  Intellect is
much bigger than mere science can comprehend - for intellect accepts the
existence of DQ, and science does not.


More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list