From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 11:04:08 BST
Scott, excellent ... plenty to disagree about ... but at least I don't
start feeling you've misunderstood or misrepresented my intent ... and
we've not digressed into socio-political levels ... making progress.
Working from the bottom up ..
Scott, you said
It is dogmatic because you have selected physis as the basis for explaining
psyche, logos, etc., without having in hand even a hint of an explanation
for psyche and logos in terms of physics.
I say absolutely not - I haven't offered any such explanations yet in
this thread, but I assure you "physics" has the best explantions I've
seen. Show me a better quality explanation - I'll buy it - I promise
you. (Physics doesn't stand or fall on the quality of MY explanation -
thankfully - it has plenty of its own as I've more than hinted.) I
didn't "select" physis / physics on the basis of any dogma - I have
gravitated towards it, on finding it provided the better
expolanations.
Scott added:
This is fine if you are looking for a quality explanation of [old
fashioned classical "physical" things].
Ian replies
Sorry, but that's just not so Scott. "New physics" can explain far
more, better, as far as I can tell, and I am looking very hard. (I'm
getting into Dawkins territory here - not a place I want to be - I
really am not dogmatically pro-science .... EXCEPT when I'm defending
it against dogma - just like Dawkins spends his life doing bless him.
That darned catch-22 again. On a level playing field I actually
started very anti-science as I said already.)
The crux as far as this debate is concerned is here ...
(What Scott and many others seem to understand by "science")
Scott said earlier [snip]
"Scientism" as "the principle that SCIENTIFIC METHOD
can and should be applied in all fields of investigation." [..]
thinking of it as the principle that only that which science can
investigate is real [..]
[Ian is] in conflict with religion, while science itself is not.
Ian repeats - this is a very important misunderstanding.
The kind of science your are talking about is the platonic kind that
snuggled up to the establishment church for a couple of millenia (to
avoid being burned at the stake, etc.) and allowed itself to be
thought of as "scientific method" in order not to conflict with
religious dogma beyond the realms of "scientific method".
Scott confirms his impression ...
Science works well on the repeatable and empirically testable.
Otherwise, not.
Ian repeats ...
That is a statement about "scientific method" NOT science.
Science is far more than scientific method, despite what the memes say.
(Something I've repeated many times BTW in this thread.)
On that basis I am most definitely not a "scientism-ist".
Popper was so nearly right, but misunderstood I'm beginning to
suspect, by me too.
Agree or not, am I making sense, before I go on ?
Ian
On 4/21/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
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 - 11:09:52 BST