From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 05:06:46 GMT
Hi Horse,
HORSE:
"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?"
If Pirsig argues that the very method for doing science is flawed,
then it follows directly that science is belittled, i.e. its authority,
reputation, or dignity are diminished. This is almost too obvious
to argue. It's inconsequential that science and scientific method are
not exactly the same.
HORSE:
"You also seem to have changed your mind on criticism:"
<snip>
"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?"
No, I have not changed my mind regarding criticism. As a matter of
principle and generally speaking, I can think of nothing that is
beyond criticism. You seem to be confusing this with disagreement
over specific criticism, which is a different matter. Pirsig has
every right to criticise science; it's just that I disagree with
most of his reasons.
You didn't mention this other quote I referenced:
PIRSIG:
"The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of
thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate,
is none other than science itself...The cause of our social crises
is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself. And until
this genetic defect is cleared, the crises will continue."
I think these direct quotes of Pirsig, the very thing you demanded
of me, suffice for substantiating my claim that Pirsig belittles
science. Some of us are still holding out hope that you will do the
same and show, through direct quotes from positivists themselves, how
their philosophy degrades art and music. As Struan rightly pointed out,
these are the standards you expect of others so we shouldn't expect any
less from you.
Also, he asked you to either remove his essay about emotivism from your
site or cite him as the author at the top or bottom of it. So far you
have done neither.
Glenn
Errata: In the quote below, it's not "minor law", it's "minor flaw".
The error does not appear in my post.
>From Glenn's post of Monday Jan 08 2001 - 07:33:13 GMT:
>http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0101/0059.html
>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
__________________________________________________________________
The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 05:07:36 GMT