Re: MD Access to Quality

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 14:35:11 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Metaphors"

    Nice try Sam,

    I will read Paul Feyerabend - he was on my do list already, but I'm not hopeful.

    I too - "when I was a student I revered the sciences and mocked religion."
    But that was 30 years ago. I got over that 25 years ago, but 15 years
    ago when I began to realise this "spiritual" stuff had something to
    it, I became sceptical of "science" and studied human behaviour,
    sociology and psychology. Not helped by yet another news story every
    day "Today US scientists announced that .... oh yeah, yawn." By 5
    years ago I was vehemently anti-science, after realising I'd been
    seeing dreadful industrial and business decision making based on
    "scientific management", and about that time I picked up several "Zen"
    threads that seemed to add credibility to some earlier "feelings" -
    ZMM being only one of them.

    What I now realise (last 3 years) is that it wasn't science that was
    the problem - it was a dreadful populist caricature of science - cold
    logic, logical-positivism, scientific method, empiricism, twisted to
    political ends - rhetoric dressed as logic - that was the problem. The
    more decent science and philosphy I've read, the more I am now
    convinced that given a level playing field there is reason to set any
    bounds to scientific explanation of truth in the real world.

    In fact the second half of the Feyerabend quote makes this point
    "I am surprised to see how many dignitaries of the Church take
    seriously the superficial arguments I and my friends once used, [...]
    they treat the sciences as if they, too, formed a Church, only a
    Church of earlier times and with a more primitive philosophy when one
    still believed in absolutely certain results."
    Well science has grown up I find.

    All I'm doing at present is fighting for a level playing field. If you
    wanna bring religion into that playing field, be my guest, but don't
    forget to bring your explanations - we'll need to use something as
    goalposts. Leave empiricism, and the stuff science can't prove, at the
    gate.

    Ian

    On 4/26/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > Hi Ian,
    >
    > I have it in the book 'Farewell to Reason' published by Verso in the UK.
    > It's chapter 9, entitled 'Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth'. At the end of
    > the article he says this: "When I was a student I revered the sciences and
    > mocked religion and I felt rather grand doing that. Now that I take a closer
    > look at the matter I am surprised to see how many dignitaries of the Church
    > take seriously the superficial arguments I and my friends once used, and how
    > ready they are to reduce their faith accordingly. In this they treat the
    > sciences as if they, too, formed a Church, only a Church of earlier times
    > and with a more primitive philosophy when one still believed in absolutely
    > certain results. A look at the history of the sciences, however, shows a
    > very different picture."
    >
    > As Mark put it, "The combination of misunderstanding and disrespecting a
    > point-of-view is always comical to me" - but I don't think that Erin is the
    > one particularly guilty of those faults. There seems to be a bit too much
    > social level mocking of faith based on the superficial argumentation that
    > Feyarabend grew out of. But then, my point of view is considered worthless
    > by some as I'm a 'professional', and therefore I must have a vested interest
    > in prostituting my intellect to keep the paychecks flowing! Needless to add,
    > I would exempt you and Mark from those criticisms. On the whole ;-)
    >
    > Regards
    > Sam
    >
    > > Feyerabend I know only by indirect reference - remind me which
    > > specific article / book you are referring to - I'd be interested.
    > >
    > > My point of doubt / scepticism remains the "fitting the facts" concept.
    > > ie Essentially empirical, but without "explanation".
    > > But I'm game to learn.
    >
    > 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 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 14:39:37 BST