Hi Rob:
> Platt:
> >If you are speaking of scientific truths, I agree. But since science is
> >SOM, I don't follow how you arrive at the conclusion that SOM is to blame
> >for absolute truths. Nor do I agree that absolute truths, such as the date
> >of your birth, are always bad.
Rob:
> Science isn't just SOM. Science is methodology of experiments and their
> interpretation. The current way of interpretting scientific data is SOM,
> there's a big difference. Science still applies in the MOQ, make no
> mistake, the interpretation of the data is through the MOQ, that's all.
> Even though many people seem to not appreciate science here, it is built on
> experiments, experiences common to all people, reproducable by anybody.
> The core of science is still just interpreting experiences, that's why
> scientists still get a doctorate in philosophy (PH.D.).
Please omit me from those who don't appreciate science. I think
science is wonderful. Without it, I wouldn't be alive today. (According to
Rick, I should say "presumably alive.") The problem with science as
described in LILA is that it subscribes to an official metaphysical
viewpoint where morality is subjective, i.e., anything goes--your values
are as good as mine in a great mushy swamp of equality. This makes
science a poor guide to society which depends on communal values
for survival. Pirsig points out, as you do, that while science denies
values, it uses them in its work all the time. In other words, "science is
in denial" to use current psychobabble.
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 - 16:01:47 BST