Glenn
Is Science really Dynamic? Can Glenn really develop athought system more
powerful than science?
Dynamic- from Greek dunamikos, powerful.
Suppose we now say
Science superseded old religious forms, not because what it says is
more true, but because what it says is more powerful.
Science is powerful, if a scientist says something , it is understood that
he/she will , if required, be able to back up whatever he/she has just said,
with proofs.
Not only that but anyone of us can test these theories, given the right
equipment and arrive at the same proof.
Unfortunately it is a facet of modern western religions, that they require
no proof only belief, it is not that they aren't amenable to testing, it is
that there is no need to test something that requires no proof to be
believed. The more you believe the " better " you are at religion.
This is why they became static systems, the clock stopped for
christianity/judaism 2000 years ago, before this religion was in a state of
flux, how many draughts were there of each testament, how many arguments
between opposing theological views....it was only when written down as the
testaments , did it become this static , dull religion, where if you believe
what has been written, you will be saved, no proof needed.
I don't think eastern religions (actually not religions but philosophies )
such as buddhism and taoism, are static, as every practitioner adds to the
sum total, and every dalai lama adds his own insights into the whole of
buddhism.. surely these are as dynamic as science.
But they are not as powerful as science because they rely on ideas not
proofs, but this is not to say science is right and these are wrong, they
are just different ways of describing the universe. Newton's Third law is
probably his most famous - every force has an equal and opposite force,
isn't this akin to the buddhist/taoist notion of Karma?
I do agree with you in that Science is a very powerful tool with which to
describe the universe, but it is only a tool
on 2/22/02 6:45 PM, Glenn Bradford at gmbbradford@netscape.net wrote:
> Suppose Pirsig removed the oxymoron and said something intelligible:
> Science superseded old religious forms, not because what it says is
> more true, but because what it says is more dynamic.
>
> Science superseded religion because it was more dynamic?
> I could develop a system of thought much more dynamic than science. It
> would involve me arbitrarily changing my mind about it every 5 minutes.
> On this basis does my system of thought supersede science? I should hope
> not. I think being more certain of the truth should be the overriding
> reason.
>
>
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 - 16:01:52 BST