From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 02:04:10 GMT
Scott and all MOQers:
DMB said:
But the MOQ is empirical from head to toe. It asserts nothing without
evidence.
Scott asked dmb:
What is the empirical evidence that there is value at the inorganic level?
(I've been asking for this for several months, from you, Paul, and Ant, and
have yet to receive an answer. If the answer is that subatomic elements
"prefer" some states over others, I would ask how do you know that that is
"preferment" and not, say, chance?)
dmb ansers:
By chance? Huh? "Preferment" is the appointment to higher office or station.
"Preference" is the word you want there. And chance has nothing to do with
it. Also, I already answered by pointing out that the "evidence" is the very
same data that is derived in all the science labs. The reading on the dials
to not change. Saying that physical reality acts according to a very
consistent pattern of perferences is based on those same readings. And it is
not intended to overturn "chance" but rather its oppostie; the laws of
physics. Preferences replace laws because the idea of unalterable physical
laws begins to break down at the sub-atomic level. As Pirsig points out, the
evidence starts to look screwy when viewed through the idea of laws and so
he would rather get rid of the idea of laws than the evidence. That's how
empirical he is, see? He'll get rid of metaphysical assumptions BEFORE he
will abandon the evidence.
Scott riddled me:
What is the empirical evidence that, all else being equal, the more dynamic
is better than the less dynamic?
dmb replies:
Again, the assertions of the MOQ are based on the very same evidence that
you already know about. The MOQ is an attempt to explain this world and
proceeds on the facts derived from this world. What makes you think there
are secret experiments or hidden data or whatever?
Scott concluded:
Please note that I think that there is value at the inorganic level, and
that the more dynamic is better, but I fail to see how either statement can
be justified empirically.
dmb says:
Maybe that's because SOM's sensory experience is the only thing that counts
as empirical in your book. If intellectual quality is being compared to
social quality, for example, we will not be able to see the difference under
a microscope. Its not detectable with the senses. But I think experience
tells us pretty clearly that the first amendment is better and more dynamic
than the first commandment. In any case, I think its quite incorrect to
insist that sensory experience is the only valid kind and that the word
"empirical" can simply mean "based on experience" without causing any
confusion at all.
I have very little hope that you will read this rightly, but there it is.
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 : Mon Mar 21 2005 - 02:13:25 GMT