Hi, Platt
>I still have a few bones to pick with you--nothing serious I assure you
>but enough to warrant further inquiry.
I'm always wary when someone says "it's nothing serious"... it generally
means they're about to blow you back to hell !!! ;)
>
>You wrote: "A tautological truth is therefore always true, and by
>definition that means absolute."
>
>I have always believed that such a thing existed as "absolute truth" and
>it appears you have confirmed my belief. Thus, those who claim, "there
>are no absolutes" are not only being self-contradictory, but wrong as
>well. Agree?
Yes, but it's a poor kind of truth that can only repeat what's already been
stated. OTOH, Russel believed that mathematics were mainly tautological,
since everything in maths unfolds from a few axioms. And no one is going to
say that maths are "a poor kind of truth". So I'd like to replace
"tautological truth" with "self-coherence". In other words, one of the
characteristics of intellectual quality requires that an intellectual
pattern should not contradict itself. "The white horse is black" is
therefore a low-quality statement, just as "2 + 2 = 5".
>
>You wrote, "Falsifiability is ingrained in the definition of the scientific
>method."
>
>Popper and his acolytes may think so, but there are plenty of
>philosophers around who don't buy it, my favorite being David Stove of
>Australia.
Never heard from him. Can you give some references ?
>At issue: not only the absurd relativity that such a definition
>leads to (P.K. Feyerabend's suggestion that scientific laws should be
>decided by public vote) but also the fallibility of observation (the raven
>may be dyed red, or not a raven at all).
I've written an essay on Feyerabend's "Against Method" during my studies (a
pretty worthless one, too), so I know about his ideas, which can be summed
up by "in science, anything goes".
IOW, science proceeds by chaos... which is only partially true. Evolution is
non-mecanistic, non-teleogical. It does not proceed in a systematic fashion,
but AWAY from a systematic fashion. Not toward some Omega Point, but toward
greater diversity. But on the other side, it also proceed toward betterness,
which is what Feyerabend overlooked. He lacked the notion of "undefined
betterness" as the strange attractor of his chaotic epistemology.
As for Popper and falsifiability, there are many way to attack his
falsifiability claim, including the one that if it was systematically
applied, science simply wouldn't exist. But all those critiques point toward
less certainty in scientific theories, not more of it.
>What's more, it has always baffled me that many scientific propositions
>are themselves beyond the pale of science. For example, the
>proposition that a statement is scientific only if it is falsifiable cannot
>be falsified. Or, the proposition that the universe is made up of nothing
but
>matter and energy consists of neither matter nor energy. Or, the
>proposition that only that which can be measured exists cannot itself
>be measured.
Yes, and once you understand the fictional nature of Man's intellectual
work, you never cease to marvel at the "magical" nature of it. I mean, a few
words and symbols, that probably only scratch the surface of the complexity
of matter and energy, have given us the keys to the total destruction of the
ecosystem. That, my friends, is *very* impressive, and should make us very
humble before the power of the Intellect.
But one also has to remember that every scientific theory also gives birth
to scientific *practices*. The Intellect allows us better *insight*, it
allows seing into new worlds, with greater clarity and depth. But then we
have to act, on the level our "science" is concerned with. The measure of
quality is still in the *experience*.
>
>IMO all of this falls into the general domain of paradox where to say "it
>is impossible to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt"
>becomes as self-contradictory as "there is no such thing as language,
>no such thing as writing and no such thing as words."
Then perhaps a little more caution in the phrasing will make it more
palatable to you : "it seems impossible to prove anything that's not
tautological."
I mean, when I look back at the discussion you and Struan were having about
whether or not you could refute the MOQ, I cannot help but agreeing with
Struan.
[Struan]
>My point is merely that academic philosophers
>will not wear that kind of argument because it contains its conclusion
>in one of its premises.
And force is to admit that "to refute the MOQ one must invoke a moral
judgment" is another kind of circular logic.
But what Struan cannot see is that he is asking you to PROVE that any
judgment is a moral judgment, thus commiting himself the circular argument
("prove that truth is a moral choice"). You are both arguing from different
world-views.
>From Struan's side, the *truth* of Pirsig's claims is beyond reach, and
therefore without value. From your side, Platt, this is a moral judgment
about truth and the MOQ, and therefore it conforts the MOQ. From your
respective sides, you are fully supported by your respective systems of
thought. You could try to outflank one another like this for ages without
anything being ever resolved. One system cannot be judged from the other
side.
So when I mean that nothing can be "proven", I mean that you cannot "prove"
to Struan that the MOQ is superior to the belief that absolute truth is the
highest good (mainly because he does not see his own preconceptions as
"beliefs", if he sees them at all, that is), just as he cannot prove to you
(which he doesn't try, mind him) that the MOQ is blatantly false.
So you can argue that it is false that truth is a moral choice, or you can
argue that rejecting the MOQ is a moral choice, which supports the MOQ, but
neither can be "proven" to the other side, because from both the question is
a contradiction in terms. I side with you, Platt, out of a feeling of
harmony and coherence (up to a point... Struan's academic distaste of Pirsig
isn't totally unfounded) but I will not claim any Absolute for the MOQ. It's
words, that's all.
>So those are the bones. I am told that Europeans, especially the
>French, have a better education than Americans in the subtleties of
>philosophy and reason. So I look to you to disabuse me of my errant
>ways and set me aright.
You can always trust the French for using good propaganda. :)
We could argue about the respective worth of our respective educational
systems, but frankly I'm not sure it would give any one of us any rhetoric
advantage. What an individual takes out of his country educational system
and what comes after makes for a wide range of capability, anyway. So if I
ever try to lord my European-French status over you, please do me a favor
and tell me to "snob out". ;)
Denis
"MY credentials ? Well, haven't you listened ? I'm French !"
"The French are the only people who have managed to make themselves admired
world-wide without ever returning the favor to anyone."
- The Xenophobic Guide to the French -
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:41 BST