Re: MD Scientific beliefs and religious faith

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 08:45:23 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD home schooling"

    Mark, it was not a matter of "how well educated" - more a matter of
    being specifically well qualified to speak as "an engineer" -
    professional experience, with peer authority, not academic
    qualification. That would be childish, I agree.

    I saw the insult the other way - towards engineers, but insult was not
    my intent, so apologies for any offence.

    I was being serious in my point - science (and engineering) is not
    "faith-based" in anything like the way "religion" is. It's
    understanding and explanation based. Your caricature of "pragmatism"
    still seems just that.

    Ian.

    On Apr 10, 2005 9:08 PM, Mark Steven Heyman
    < > wrote:
    > Ian,
    >
    > All of my thoughts in this thread are directed toward the argument
    > that started it, which is about whether or not scientific assumptions
    > are faith-based and, therefore, no different than religious
    > assumptions. Please try to keep this in mind before hitting me with
    > your ridiculous, half-baked diatribes.
    >
    > Furthermore, I find your reference to your level of education a
    > rather childish appeal to authority. I've rigorously avoided
    > referring to my own credentials in these discussions for just this
    > reason, but it would appear that you are about half as well educated
    > as I. Now, doesn't that sound silly?
    >
    > If you don't have time to carefully contribute to this discussion, at
    > least, please, tone down the insults.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    > --
    > InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    > Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    > Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    >
    > "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
    > We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
    >
    > On 10 Apr 2005 at 13:49, ian glendinning wrote:
    >
    > Matt, Sam,
    >
    > sam said:
    > If a scientist or engineer 'doesn't really care whether or not their
    > belief is correct' then they don't really care about the outcome.
    >
    > msh replied:
    > No. The outcome is ALL they care about. They wanna land that
    > spacecraft, complete that circuit, build that bridge. What they
    > don't care about is the literal truth of their assumptions. In
    > fact, they care so little about the "truth" of the assumptions that,
    > if the assumptions get in the way of orbiting the satellite, they
    > will
    > DROP the assumptions. This is pragmatism in action.
    >
    > If either of you actually believe either of those statements, then
    > you
    > are sadly misguided by a gross caricature of reality.
    >
    > I am a professional engineer BSc(Eng) MIMechE, WWeldI, for over 30
    > years, and an MBA qualified experienced manager in industry, and I
    > can
    > assure you few engineers (or scientists, or managers) have such a
    > narrow, blinkered, careless, thoughtless view of the world. You are
    > creating a disagreement where there is none and spreading the false
    > memes in the process.
    >
    > Get real. Give someone other than philosophers credit. At least Sam
    > started with "if" and is therefore not wrong in what he says in that
    > sentence.
    >
    > The "spacecraft landing" is only a "part" of the outcome - go read
    > Pirsig and his motorcycle maintenance analogies to understand good,
    > quality engineering (or good, quality anything). Go read my review of
    > Dawkins and the 10,000 rivets flying in close formation thanks to a
    > plane-load of social anthropologists. Why make such a colourful world
    > so black and white ? Repeat after me "There is no dichotomy".
    >
    > Ian
    >
    > On Apr 10, 2005 10:40 AM, Mark Steven Heyman
    > < > wrote:
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 Apr 11 2005 - 09:01:52 BST