Re: MD Access to Quality

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 14:26:13 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

    Erin,

    This is the main debate in another thread too. (I've just clarified
    what I meant by "science wouldn't presume" in this thread, responding
    to Scott.)

    I think we (probably me included) are mixing up something to do with
    "empirical" and being part of primary pre-intellectual "experience".
    I'm sure empirical and experience are related only in the more "common
    sense" usage of the word experience - Dr Johnson Kicks Rocks etc. not
    some Pirsigian / Zen pre-intellectual experience of rock.

    I don't thing we should be using "empirical" in this MoQ space.

    Ian

    On 4/19/05, Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > IAN: Science wouldn't presume to say anything about "beauty" or
    > aesthetics,
    > It could say someting about "objective" qualities of the art work and
    > it's processes, if asked, but the person asking would be missing the
    > points of both art and science.
    > ERIN: Science wouldn't say the beauty or quality of a painting is empirical
    > but many MOQists do say that and that is what I thought Scott's point was.
    > If masses of people are "experiencing" transubstantion then why not call it
    > empirical...as militant MOQists say justifying their expansion of empirical
    > "ideas are real as rocks".
    >
    >
    >
    > ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Scott, you said
    > The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare
    > that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going
    > to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the
    > bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in
    > conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.
    >
    > I say, I despair ...
    > This is the theistic fallacy of science, a caricature, but not science
    > itself.
    >
    > 99% of things in the world can not be proven (and 100% cannot be
    > disproven) by scientific test methods. Science is based on doubt,
    > supported by plausible explanation. Not - "I can't demonstrate that by
    > a test - so I'll explain it by divine magic."
    >
    > Science wouldn't presume to say anything about "beauty" or aesthetics,
    > It could say someting about "objective" qualities of the art work and
    > it's processes, if asked, but the person asking would be missing the
    > points of both art and science.
    >
    > As to the rest of this thread, I find myself returning to my plea from
    > a year ago that religion and global politics of war be banned from
    > this forum - they're far too complicated for either science or
    > doctrine-based causal explanations They depend primarily on whose
    > version of history you believe. That's in the memes.
    >
    > Back to basics please.
    > Ian
    >
    >
    > On 4/19/05, Scott Roberts wrote:
    > > Ant,
    > >
    > > Scott Roberts stated April 18th 2005:
    > >
    > > >Oh yes, and I'm still waiting for an example where science and
    > > >contemporary,
    > > >non-fundamentalist theism are in conflict. As I've said before, you're
    > > >about
    > > >50 to 100 years out of date.
    > >
    > > Ant:
    > > For starters, what about transubstantiation? i.e. the Roman Catholic
    > belief
    > > th! at the Eucharist (that represents the presence of Christ in the mass)
    > is
    > > literally the body and blood of Jesus.
    > >
    > > Scott:
    > > Where's the conflict? The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare
    > > that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going
    > > to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the
    > > bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in
    > > conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.
    > >
    > > - Scott
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 16:46:58 BST