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

[Ron Kulp]

> On May 23, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd say science pertains to a representation of reality. That's why
> science is malleable and subject to revision... no?
> 
Ron replies:
I would say so, a model or representation is tested in experience
As having the ability to accurately predict observable phenomena.
Thanks Dan that's a better way of putting it.

>> 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
> 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