Rod, Dave M, Erin,
Erin wrote:
I do think there is
cultural variation in how we approach causal and acausal relationships.
And when Pirsig says science is not independent from social level I
see that he does not have this "causal bias" that seems so pervasive in
the scientific world.
I don't understand your argument. As far as I'm concerned, Pirsig's own
causal bias is that social patterns mediates scientific descriptions of
nature.
Dave M. writes:
Under this descriptive model, their laws
come from not only the true dynamic reality but also
from the static background which includes biological,
social and intellectual static patterns. Hence
Pirsigs science relys on social patterns.
Whether the laws are descriptive or prescriptive seems irrelevent
to his claims. Which social patterns influence the laws of physics?
If you can't name any that don't sound goofy, you're just blowing
smoke.
>Glenn
>
>Is Science really Dynamic? Can Glenn really develop athought system more
>powerful than science?
>
>Dynamic- from Greek dunamikos, powerful.
Pirsig uses 'dynamic' in his quote as meaning changable; provisional. I
don't see why you are bringing in an alternate meaning that he didn't intend. I guess for you even 'dynamic' is dynamic.
>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.
Perhaps, but like my hypothetical system of thought that changes every
5 minutes, being dynamic alone is not sufficient for it being any good.
<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?
If you stretch the word 'akin' very, very far, then I agree. I see you've
read Capra.
>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 Science superseded old religious forms, not because what it says is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 Science superseded religion because it was more dynamic?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.
>>
>>
>
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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