Thanks for the quick reply Platt,
P:
If you're satisfied with the "something from nothing" theory of creation,
be my guest. I find it no more convincing than the "ass of a giant ant"
theory.
R:
It is the best I have heard until a better one comes along. I will keep an
open mind, and am expecting scientists too as well. It is better than the
"ant's ass" one for the simple reason that it correlates with other theories,
and because you still have to explain the ant.
P:
Why you think a creation theory must have "scientific value"
escapes me since science has utterly failed to explain values.
R:
Yes, there is a defect in science as Pirsig pointed out. The MOQ clarifies
that the division between value and science has always been a mistake. With
this enhanced paradigm, science/intellect can broaden its scope and re-enter
the humanities. Science did just fine with astronomy, cosmology and physics
though. I can't see where the MOQ will change many (if any) of these
theories. BTW, I would hope that Pirsig would not argue with physics theories
as much as he would present a metaphysical alternate picture or way to think
of things.
P:
(I gather you consider Pirsig's explanation of how life began to be
on a par with the African myth of vomit from the god Bumba.)
R:
I find no fundamental disagreement with Pirsig's metaphysical explanation and
evolution/ the origin of life (though I find Pirsig isn't that knowledgeable
of the subject, and makes several minor errors in his explanation of it)
> Science is built upon the recognition of our ignorance and that we need to
> search for answers and to avoid unfalsifiable, authoritative dogma. What
> evidence have you that chance couldn't be a factor? Why do you want to put
> this explanation off limits if it is better than all others?
P:
Because "chance" is unfalsifiable. As explained in the Discover
Magazine article, in quantum theory "anything can pop into existence." I
put chance not off limits so much as intellectually empty, bereft of
explanatory power.
R:
It is not. If you have a die it is intellectually sound to assume that there
is a chance of numbers 1 through 6 popping up on any given roll. On the
other hand, the theory predicts there will not be any 7s, as the number is
not available. Quantum theory requires similar constraints upon possible big
bangs or other chance events. Again though, I personally believe that in a
thousand years from now that science will have much better theories. I am
not argueing the truth of science, but of the quest for better and better
explanations. I certainly don't advise resorting to the dead end of dogma.
P:
Australian philosopher David Stove has knocked some serious
holes in Popper's "unfalsifiable" doctrine. Science is not immune to the
charge of "authoritarian dogma."
R:
Yes, so too does Popper, Pirsig, Dewey and Kuhn (among many). Science is not
perfect. It should strive toward constant improvement though(DQ). Shouldn't
it?
Risky
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 - 16:01:57 BST