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

[Ron Kulp]

John,
What does science pertain to if not
A kind of reality?

> On May 22, 2015, at 3:09 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> JC
> 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