From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Aug 30 2004 - 19:16:57 BST
DMB I suspect I shouldn't have bothered, but here goes on the important
point ...
(I'll ignore all your offensive accusations.)
You said
It seems that you confuse politicians and journalists with philosophers and
scientists, or imagine everyone else does. Each of these are judged by
different standards and it doesn't help to pretend they are interchangable
in
any way. I mean, nobody expects politicians to be scientists, the problem is
when we have politicians who put forward policies that defy or ignore
scientific findings.
I re-iterate
I certainly do not make that confusion,
and I certainly don't hold that anyone else does generally,
I was making a specific point.
The point I made originally was exactly this
- when making a political decision, don't rely on science,
therefore when debating such decisions on a board like this,
let's not trade syllogisms or pretend the answer lies in logic.
You are in fact agreeing with me,
making the same point as me,
much as it pains you.
I am not alone. Read this.
http://www.psybertron.org/2004_08_01_archive.html#109309221405478908
or go straight here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/07/ec
rqed07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2004/07/12/ixconn.html
(beware long URL's corrupted by line-breaks)
Depending on your response,
I could pick up on this specific quote of yours,
to further illustrate the original point.
"policies that defy or ignore scientific findings"
Worth analysing that, if you wish to debate confusion of politics with
science.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" < >
To: < >
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: MD Fox News and Logical Analysis
> Ian and all interested MOQers:
>
> Ian Glendinning said:
> BTW you know already that I use "scare quotes" to signify words that "I
> know" I'm using in a special way, not necessarily understood the same way
> (yet) by my reader. Yes ?
>
> dmb replies:
> No. You can't expect the reader to know, for example, that PC refers to
the
> dominant paradigm without saying so. If that's what you mean, you really
> should just call it that. Its so much more clear and simple when we all
> properly use the language. BTW, what does the phrase "scare quotes" mean?
>
> Ian continued:
> Yes I guess I am using words a little out of the boxes in which they may
> have become pigeon-holed. I do that not to be difficult (I really would
like
> people like you to understand me), but because often the pigeon-holes have
> been framed by the "prevailing paradigm", and their original intent /
> metaphor has been lost. I'm not playing King Cnut, holding back the tide
of
> etymology (though again that was never Cnut's objective either). What I am
> doing is demonstrating that the tide of "scientific political correctness"
> is making it very difficult to use words in the spirit in which they were
> originally intended. I've never felt hide-bound by the (democratically
> conventional) definitions of a million dictionaries. "Conventionally
> speaking" is the problem for me, if it is "the convention" that is
"wrong".
> Bear with me. (I did make the same point about dictionaries in another
> thread - on the word "petard".)
>
> dmb replies:
> Never felt bound by dictionaries? For one who wishes to participate in a
> discussion group, this is a serious problem. How do you expect to make
sense
> to anyone? No, this position is completely untenable. It does no good to
> abandon conventional definitions, facts or logic even if the goal is to
> criticize and scrutinize such conventions. It disables our ability to see
> beyond convention. As a matter of fact, Pirsig disputes conventional
wisdom
> and the dominant paradigm on every other page without the burden of this
> self-imposed paralysis. The MOQ doesn't abandon logic or the english
> language and neither should we.
>
> DMB had complained:
> Get with the program / notice the name of the thread. We're talking about
> the relative merits of various news organizations, where facts and logic,
> conventionally speaking, mean everything.
>
> Ian replied:
> This is the problem I'm addressing, in a nutshell. I could just leave it
at
> that, or I could get all post-modern and deconstruct it, one concept at a
> time. As usual, I'll fall between stools.
> "Conventionally speaking", yes, but you cannot seriously believe Fox News
> (or the BBC, or the House of Representatives, or the Oval Office for that
> matter) actually deals in facts and logic, at least not in any truth /
> quality sense ?
>
> dmb says:
> It seems that you confuse politicians and journalists with philosophers
and
> scientists, or imagine everyone else does. Each of these are judged by
> different standards and it doesn't help to pretend they are interchangale
in
> any way. I mean, nobody expects politicians to be scientists, the problem
is
> when we have politicians who put forward policies that defy or ignore
> scientific findings. So on some level, yes, we should expect politicians
and
> journalists to deal in facts and logic. Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction,
> for example, were said to exist in great numbers and to pose a threat to
the
> United States. Either that is true or its not. Its a matter of fact.
Science
> and philosophy need not have anything to do with it. The existence of
these
> weapons can be varified or not. Since political decisions were made and
> thousands have subsequently died, lost limbs and been tortured based the
the
> existence of these weapons, facts become a matter of life and death. In
that
> context, I think it is outrageously immoral to dismiss the importance of
> these issues. Even a die-hard postmodern deconstructionist has to feel
> something when people die for a lie, don't they?
>
> Ian said:
> Anyway, here goes ... The "prevaling paradigm" is indeed to have facts and
> logic underly the truth of any story. That's scientific, right, its gotta
be
> true - Yes ? It's not the facts an logic that are (necessarily) wrong,
> that's only a small part of the argument. It's the prevailing paradigm
> that's wrong in expecting "scientific facts and logic" to tell some kind
of
> meaningful truth in what is a highly non-scientific situation (eg morality
> and truth around the reasoning of going to war, or justifying torture at
Abu
> Graib, or the quality of a national helthcare service, or whatever -
> sceintific logic ? - do me a favour)
>
> dmb replies:
> Again, you're mixing of science and politics is confusing the issue. I
don't
> think anyone here is so utterly captivated by the scientific paradigm that
> they expect the political issues arounds our spys or torturers to be
> resolved by science or anything like that. And the problem with the
dominant
> paradigm, as it is identified by guys like Pirsig and Wilber, is NOT that
it
> relies on facts or logic. The scientific method comes with an eraser, as
> Pirsig points out, and is inherently open to change, to new theories and
new
> worldviews. I mean, the idea that facts and logic are some kind of poison
or
> some form of oppression, strikes me as a radically wrong diagnosis of the
> problem with the dominant paradigm. (I'm happy to discuss this further now
> that I know you're not talking about worldviews and not the euphemisms of
> diversity advocates. Huge difference, you know.)
>
> Ian explained:
> Seriously, I do mean pretty much "dominant paradigm", but in a VERY
> dominant - all prevailing - way. The "scientific" paradigm (meme)
dominates
> even in domains where scientific facts and logic represent only a tiny
> proportion of the argument. This becomes "political correctness" because,
> like the "forbidden" words in the narrow definition you supply, I am
almost
> forbidden to argue unless I agree to use the scientific euphemisms of
"facts
> and logic". By rejecting these, I am outcast from the argument, eg by you
> DMB. (This is my Catch-22 BTW - how can I argue my case in your space, if
I
> don't agree to the dictionary definitions (rules) in your space. Yossarian
> all over.) If I reject "scientific facts and logic", I'm left with no
tools
> with which to argue - in that space.
>
> dmb replies:
> An outcast who is almost forbidden to argue? Again, I think this is a
> self-imposed exile. I honestly see no barriers to criticizing the
scientific
> worldview. Pirsig's MOQ is all about exactly that and we discuss it using
> facts, logic and conventional language every single day of the week.
Sorry,
> but posing as the misunderstood genuis doesn't work in a space where such
> contrarians are loved and celebrated as a force of nature.
>
> I think its important to remember that Intellect is the highest level of
> static reality in Pirsig's MOQ, despite his criticisms of SOM. Pirsig's
aim
> is not to discredit the intellect itself, but a particular set of
> metaphysical assumptions. Scientific data is not ignored or abandoned in
the
> MOQ, its only viewed differently. It seems you've done something worse
than
> throw the baby out with the bath water, Ian. You've thrown out the baby
and
> kept the bathwater. It is the ammorality and the paralysis of SOM that
> Pirsig objects to most of all, and it seems to be the only things you've
> retained.
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 Aug 30 2004 - 19:25:54 BST