Hi Denis:
> >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 ?
Check out the following website for info about Stove:
http://www.newcriterion.com/constant/idolsintro.htm
> 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.
Nothing magical about it if you believe that mathematics reflects
patterns of the physical universe because both are creations of
intelligent awareness, i.e. DQ.
> 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."
Well, you can't prove it by me. :-) You seem to be saying what the post-
modernists say, "It's a fact there are no facts." Not a high quality
intellectual pattern by your own definition of "self-coherence."
> [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.
The key word above is "judged" in the last sentence. No matter which
way you slice it, judgements enter the picture . . .some things are better
than others . . . and you're still in morality land.
> 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.
My point (if I have one) is that there are different kinds of truth, each
carrying varying degrees of certainty. In our awareness we can
ascertain truths that cannot be verified by the physical senses
including mathematical facts (square root of minus one), esthetic
impact (Tolstoy's novels are not art but life itself) and the inner
certainties of visceral facts (that car is bearing down on me). Then
there is scientific truth and legal truth and who knows what other kinds.
But no matter which kind you appeal to in any particular circumstance,
you make a moral judgement. The moral judgement (this is better than
that) comes first (as Pirsig might say), and the oaths and arguments
come afterwards.
But I could be wrong.
Platt
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 - 16:01:42 BST