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

[Dan Glover]

I'd say science pertains to a representation of reality. That's why
science is malleable and subject to revision... no?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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



-- 
http://www.danglover.com