Hi Glenn:
> PLATT:
> My position is that you have focused on the word "scientific" without
> taking into consideration the context in which it appears. Since I quoted
> that context in my post to addressed to Struan of Jan. 19, I see no need
> to repeat it.
GLENN:
> Since it's irrelevent, neither do I. You posted Struan twice on 19 Jan. In
> the second one you focused on the meaning of "scientific" at the end of
> chapter 12. However, my post is obviously in response to your first posting
> on 19 Jan which refers to a completely different part of the book where he
> talks about the doctor/germ example. Any context that "scientific" had in
> chapter 12 is lost here. However, you can't fault me for neglecting to
> address the context issues you raised about the doctor/patient issue. That
> was the point of my post.
We'll let the readers decide what Pirsig means by "science" and
"scientific" in the contexts in which they appear. Both contexts were
quoted in my posts of Jan.19.
> PLATT:
> I'm puzzled, however, why Pirsig would want to claim that MOQ is
> "scientific" if, as you've said, he has a "personal vendetta against
> science." Between those two positions, something doesn't compute.
> You can accuse Pirsig of inconsistency, but IMHO, the inconsistency
> lies elsewhere.
GLENN:
> I am convinced Pirsig has a personal vendetta against science and admires
> its authority simultaneously. His writing bears this out and it's the only
> honest conclusion I can come to. As I've said before, Pirsig is deeply
> conflicted and is of two minds about science. This conflict is not
> necessarily an inconsistency until you examine precise statements about
> science in his writing, because he could dislike certain aspects of
> science and admire other ones. I have found at least one direct
> contradiction in his writing concerning his attitudes about science. But
> this is a topic about attitudes and we've been over it before. I don't
> want it to derail the current discussion about the taxonomic method being
> scientific.
>
> My position, outlined in my last two posts, is that:
> 1) Pirsig claims the taxonomic method is scientific and yet
> 2) It is not scientific in any normal sense of the word.
> I'm not saying this is an inconsistency. It's either just wrong,
> misleading, or he's neglected to tell us what the new meaning of science
> is under the MOQ. Would you care to comment on this further or just let it
> rest?
At the end of Chap. 12, "science" means "systematic knowledge of the
material or physical world." In the doctor-germ example in Chap. 13,
"scientific" means "accurate in the manner of an exact science," a
meaning he limits to the doctor-germ example as I pointed out.
(Quotes from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, so he uses
both words in their "normal" sense.)
But, let's let it rest. Since I find the subject of art more pregnant with
possibility than our current discussion, I look forward to your response
to 3WD's post of Jan 21. I'd like to know what you consider to be "great"
art and why. IMHO, art has more relevance to the MOQ than the limited
world of science.
Platt
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 - 16:00:58 BST