RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 04:59:54 GMT

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "RE: MD all of society's ills"

    DMB,

    You're a funny guy, DMB ;-)

    DMB said:
    So everbody's point of view is correct and thinking otherwise is the
    enshrinement of my own point of view as "God's". Oh please. Have words lost
    all meaning? Has it become impossible to be mistaken or to have an incorrect
    opinion?
    ...
    If we can't say what is right and wrong, what
    is supportable and made-up, what is rational and what is fallacious, how can
    we even discuss it. No, I think the idea that everyone's POV is equally
    correct does a grave injustice to those who have worked hard and spent the
    time it takes to grasp the issues.

    Matt:
    Now, I said nothing about different views being equal. I said we have to
    choose which one's better. Its obvious you've chosen. It should be pretty
    obvious that I've chosen. We're both (supposedly) still listening to the
    conversation, though, to see if there's something we've missed that might
    change our minds. No, what I disagreed with was your use of the word
    "accurate." Saying that Glenn's scientism isn't accurate is saying that
    you've seen the Truth and can compare your answer to the Truth and you've
    found that Glenn's isn't as accurate in corresponding the the Truth as
    yours. But correspodence doesn't make any sense unless you have a God's
    eye view, unless you've somehow found the way to penetrate to the Truth.
    If you had said that Glenn's scientism isn't "true," that would've made
    more sense to me because, from your point of view, it isn't. But I was
    cautioning against the word "accurate" because it makes you seem like a
    prophet who's been handed the Truth on 3 stone tablets from a mountain, and
    you can then compare what people say to the tablets.

    DMB said:
    You wanted him to make a downward movement of science? I smell another pet
    theory that only confuses and distorts things, but I'll bite. What the heck
    does that mean?

    Matt:
    Like I said before, rather than moving everything UP to the level of
    science (by stretching out what science means), you move science DOWN to
    the level of everything else. You deflate its cultural ego by telling them
    that they haven't found the Real Way Towards Truth. That they are just
    good at figuring out what to do with rocks, but with texts they should
    leave it to Comp Lit professors.

    Matt

    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 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 04:54:15 GMT