From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 07:05:55 BST
Mark, I think this is supporting what you are saying ....
(Remember my note to Dawkins about the planeload of social anthropologists.)
Science and technology never "solved" or "caused to be solved" ANY
problem in the real world, WITHOUT a lot of
socio-politico-aesthetico-logico-philosophico-rhetorico-economico-interacting
HUMANS involved too. Causes (credit or blame) cannot be neatly lain at
the doorstep of any one ology or ism.
You do almost say this yourself in your third-paragraph.
The trick (for me) is not to hope for some ideal world where political
and economic "power" is equitably distibuted, but to improve
prevailing decision-making models in use - get science out of its
"hard-science" memetic dead-end.
Prevailing mental models is about memes. Which is where I came in.
Ian
On 4/21/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Just time enough for a quick response...
>
> On 19 Apr 2005 at 16:47, Sam Norton wrote:
>
> In particular, I asked MSH if he could think of an example of science
> having 'solved' a problem in the third level of the MoQ (I'm not
> saying it hasn't, I just think the question could do with being
> thought about).
>
> msh says:
> If you consider health and standard of living issues as social
> problems, then sure, science has solved a tremendous number of
> problems. And I believe you could make the case for a number of
> similar issues, better airplanes, bridges, dams, flood control.
>
> But I suppose one could argue that these are really biological
> issues, not social, though I think a strong contradictory case can
> be built using the MOQ's Moral Hierarchy. Can Science, per say,
> solve social problems like redistribution of resources in a more
> equitable manner? Or provide a truly democratic economic system
> where everyone has an equal say in what's produced, and how? I'd
> say no, not in any extant socio-political arrangement, since science
> and technology are merely expensive tools.
>
> So, because Science is unable to solve social problems on it own,
> that is, without the approval of entrenched power, many problems are
> not solved and , in fact, Science is used in socially negative ways
> in order to better serve powerful interests.
>
> But it doesn't have to be this way. Although the hard sciences
> themselves can't directly apply to many social issues, the tools of
> Science, i.e., reason and evidence, CAN be applied to solving any
> kind of social problem, as long as power is equitably distributed,
> or, if this is unrealistic, as long as people in power can be
> persuaded by reason and evidence, and are truly motivated to act in
> the public's best interest.
>
> I know... we are a long way from having such leaders, so the
> struggle goes on.
>
> Best,
> 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
>
>
> 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 : Thu Apr 21 2005 - 07:19:09 BST