From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 00:56:31 GMT
Hi Glenn
Regarding your last post (18 Jan 2003 at 22:04) and a previous post of yours referenced
at:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0101/0059.html
On 18 Jan 2003 at 22:04, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> The post referenced above also give some rather tasty quotes
> of Pirsig belittling science. Enjoy!
I did - very much. But I fail to see how criticizing scientific method is the same as
belittling or even criticizing science. Both of the quotes you give in your post of Monday
Jan 08 2001 07:33:13 GMT (reproduced at the end of this post) are specifically
targetted at scientific METHOD and not science itself. Although related they are
different. Do you see the difference? Or are you saying that science is exactly the same
as scientific method? That the method utilised _by_ science is in fact just another name
_for_ science?
You also seem to have changed your mind on criticism:
On 4 Jan 2003 at 1:49, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> I also find entirely reasonable Pirsig's position that science is not beyond
> criticism.
and yet sometime later:
On 5 Jan 2003 at 23:37, Glenn Bradford wrote:
> And yes, the upshot of this definition is that any criticism of science (as a discipline)
> will lessen its authority, dignity, or reputation.
because criticism = belitllement as a consequence of my statement:
On 5 Jan 2003 at 21:38, Horse wrote:
> If we accept Glenns definition of 'belittle' as "lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation
> of" then surely any criticism of science (as a discpline) does this.
So are you now saying that any criticism of scientific method is, in fact, criticism of
science (they are the same thing) and that, as criticism = belittlement, then it is
unreasonable and unjustifiable to do so?
Horse
From Glenn's post of Monday Jan 08 2001 - 07:33:13 GMT:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0101/0059.html
As he was testing hypothesis number one by experimental method a flood of other
hypotheses would come to mind, and as he was testing these, some more came
to mind, and as he was testing these, still more came to mind until it became
painfully evident that as he continued testing hypotheses and eliminating them
or confirming them their number did not decrease. It actually increased as he
went along.
R.M. Pirsig ZMM Chapter 10
and
If true, that law is not a minor law in scientific reasoning. The law is completely
nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all
scientific method!
R.M. Pirsig ZMM Chapter 10
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 20 2003 - 00:53:44 GMT