Well said! Bravo! and THANK YOU.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Lennox [SMTP:peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 2:54 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD horse's accusation
>
>
>
> 'fraid I have to hold my hand up to that one. But the point is that we
> tend
> to perceive with the equipment we have evolved with; jut because a concept
> is agreed as outdated /superceded, it doesn't mean it just goes away.
> (Popper again, on the evolution of ideas). For example, whilst most
> scientists will readily admit that Newtonian physics is not the best
> description of the physical universe, it nevertheless permeates their
> thinking in myriad, unconsidered, ways.
> And there are sound reasons for using an inaccurate-but computationally
> inexpensive hypothesis rather than an accurate-but-unwieldy new,
> hypothesis
> which might have all sorts of bugs in it. It's a bit like the comparison
> between ready reckoning and precise calculations using appropriate
> instruments.both ways have their day, and it is no coincidence that
> sentient
> life as we know it evolved to utilise the former, first of all.
> The point I'm making here is that, just because readers of Pirsig (and
> others) agree that the subjective / objective dualism may well impede
> progress toward better understanding of our universe, that is not to say
> we
> can banish it completely overnight. It's embedded in our language, our
> conceptual lexicon (at quite a primitive level) and the general values of
> the societies in which we live. So, as with the story of evolution, the
> new
> adaptation needs to get along with the old. That was all I was trying to
> say.
> cheers,
> ppl
>
> Peter Lennox
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST