From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 18:18:08 BST
Hello Sam:
As I read it, one lesson woven through your post
about the "actors" and their "actions" is that:
belief is always an inferior or lower quality
state than knowledge, in terms of "real world"
support.
Belief Statements are probabilistic or qualified,
while Knowledge Statements are deductive or
definitional.
Believe and Know are often used interchangeably
and imprecisely so. We need to be clear on
which is most appropriate or we get into a "tar baby"
argument.
Example:
We BELIEVE that the theory of evolution best
describes the changes in living things over time,
as they have been observed in the fossil record and
through observation.
We KNOW that a 42 centimeter board cut from a
meter long board will leave a residual piece that
is a saw cut width less than 58 centimeters.
Another lesson is that the motives of the believer
may hold more information about the arguer than
they willingly express in their conclusion.
(for any argument -- science as well as religion or
football or horse races)
thanks--mel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:28 AM
Subject: MD Galileo
> Hi all,
>
> Content Advisory Warning: for those with an antipathy to Christian
perspectives, please look away
> now. You must consider your blood pressure ;-)
>
> Pirsig claims that science is superior to Christian beliefs because it is
more dynamic, specifically
> that it has an 'eraser'. He - in common with much conventional opinion -
perceives Christianity as
> something which is unable to change, and therefore of comparatively low
Quality. As you might
> imagine, I consider his opinion on this matter flawed and ill-founded.
>
> To bring this out, I'd like to look at the Galileo episode as Galileo is
often brought out as an
> example of the wickedness of church institutions, and certainly, to
execute someone for their
> beliefs is an abominable act. However, the wickedness of that act - and
the use of this example in
> the various debates between 'science and religion' (in truth, internal
arguments within the
> Modernist/SOM mindset) has distorted one particular truth - and when
Pirsig, and others not too far
> away from this forum, repeat the idea that Christianity cannot change,
they are reproducing a static
> pattern which is not true, that is, which has low Quality. So I'd like
simply to point out that it
> is not true, as it would seem conducive to a proper discussion for us to
be in full possession of
> the facts. Not least because the increasing salience of religious
questions in our world in the
> coming years will force us to examine our deepest assumptions, both
religious, atheist, agnostic and
> absconding - all of us.
>
> So, Galileo. I would want to point out two things.
>
> 1. Although Galileo's perspective was correct (ie the earth does travel
round the sun) it could not
> be shown to be correct at the time of the debate. The Ptolemaic model was
a more accurate model for
> predicting the movements of the heavenly bodies. Galileo's perspective had
greater beauty, and
> promised great things, but it could not be shown to be correct at the time
of his trial. (See Kuhn
> on this, amongst others).
>
> 2. The church authorities did not rule out the possibility of change. I
quote from Cardinal
> Bellarmino (Galileo's antagonist): "If there were any real proof that the
Sun is in the centre of
> the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the Sun
does not go round the Earth
> but the Earth around the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great
circumspection in explaining
> passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit
that we did not
> understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be
true". In other words, if
> Galileo could have proved his point, then the Church would have backed
down.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> 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 - 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 : Thu Oct 21 2004 - 19:15:35 BST