From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 20:48:20 GMT
Hi John
On 5 Jan 2003 at 15:46, John Maher wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> Of course I will unsubscribe as you request, but, for
> your own good, I ask you to consider these points as I
> go.
If you wish to unsubscribe feel free to do so. I do not and have not asked you to
unsubscribe but merely stated that if you believe that smear campaigns are the way to
conduct a debate then you should go elsewhere. You are mis-stating my position.
> 1) Your belligerent, bullying manner is not only
> offensive, but it also stops you from being an
> effective moderator of this forum in that it places
> ALL of the burden of proof on those who dissent, while
> letting those who agree with your version of Pirsig
> get away with anything they like.
Again you mis-state my position. Even Glenn agrees with me here when he says:
On 4 Jan 2003 at 1:49, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> You've had ample opportunity to complain about any of my past
> science-related posts, but since you generally have not....
> 2) It is ironic that you require of your contributors
> (ONLY when they disagree with you) a much higher level
> of scholarship than Pirsig was prepared to forward.
> Read Lila and see how often Pirsig fails to provide
> quotes to back up his reading of others. (I DO NOT
> CRITICISE PIRSIG FOR THIS).
If the above is true then I would have challenged Glenn and many others on many
previous occasions. As I have not your above claim is false.
>
> 3) As someone who (I would hope) has some expertise in
> philosophy, you will be aware that pithy quotes, while
> they do have their place, are not the be all and end
> all of evidence. Glenn, and now Matt, have taken (in
> some ways) a more sophisticated approach, which seems
> to have passed you by. The simplistic notion that if
> you throw in a Pirsig quote you are 'de dicto' correct
> and honest, but if you don't you are wrong and evil,
> does not help very much.
The notion is yours not mine. Perhaps you see this debate in such simple terms -
fortunately I don't. If others make spurious claims which seek to damage others then, as
as moderator I should interject. Generally, unless I consider the abuse to be severe, I let
those members involved get on with it. As Pirsig is not around to defend himself against
such unfounded allegations, on this occasion I chose to get involved.
>
> 4) You write that, 'It is not normal practice to
> attempt to disprove spurious and/or malicious claims.
> They are treated with the contempt they deserve.' I
> would suggest that this is the heart of your problem.
> You have your fundamentalist view of the MOQ and
> anything that falls outside of it is, in your eyes,
> spurious and therefore deserves contempt. I understand
> Pirsig's claim that 'Phaedrus' means 'wolf' was
> spurious. Does this mean that he deserves the same
> sort of contempt you value and which you show to
> dissenters?
If you don't understand the idea that it is necessary to provide evidence of a claim then
you don't understand science or the scientific process.
>
> 5) My contribution to the debate about Pirsig
> belittling science is that bad scientists (or poorly
> informed non-scientists), simply by indulging bad
> science, belittle science.
Again a very simplistic view but a very common position within scientism to discredit and
isolate many respectable and knowledgeable scientists who don't tow the popular line.
> Pirsig claims that the MOQ
> is scientific and, in doing so, belittles science,
> because that claim is false (spurious, therefore
> deserving of contempt by your values and unworthy of
> being disproved!).
Really? It may be your opinion that his claim is false but so far you have done nothing to
substantiate this claim.
Also, see Matt's comments on this. Pirsig is attempting to expand scope of science so
your opinion bears little resemblance to the facts.
A very strange thing seems to have happened though. Initially you presented yourself
as:
On 4 Jan 2003 at 23:39, Horse wrote:
> ... a practising neurosurgeon, I came here intrigued by Pirsig's
> concept of 'mind' but, I must confess, have become
> very disillusioned very quickly.
which is at odds with virtually everything else you say. If it is your position that Pirsig is
making false claims and belittling science then why should you have any interest in his
view on mind. Seems a bit odd to me. And if you have become so disillusioned why
should you want to continue to discuss them in a more academic manner elsewhere.
You have stated quite catagorically that Pirsig is wrong and belittles science so what
more is there for you to discuss. Surely you must have better things to do with your life?
However Matt and Glenn and Mari and Erin and David and Rudy and Platt and lots of
others seem to be able to debate (and disssent) with others about MoQ issues without
any problems. Glenn has been a vocal dissenter for a long time now and I have found
many things he has said very interesting - and disagreed with him on some. In this
instance I have asked him to provide evidence of his claim.
>
> Finally, it was Pirsig himself who promoted this site
> in the foreword to ZAMM. It is, therefore, a huge
> disappointment that it is run as it is. Why did you
> set up a forum dedicated to a philosophy from which
> you are so obviously disconnected?
So I'm a fundamentalist MoQ-ite (Point 4 of your post - see above) who is disconnected
from the MoQ!!! Maybe that makes sense in scientism land but not to me.
>
> I take my leave and apologise to others for my
> contribution
Apology accepted!
Horse
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 20:45:34 GMT