From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 07:02:45 BST
Thanks for your paitence Erin - you clearly have more than I do - I'm
impressed :-)
So (IF its of any value),
No reason to limit what science is permitted to "explain"
And, in explaining,
No reason to restrict science to logical-postivist reasoning
(objective empirical tests of "scientific method" joined-up
exlcusively with syllogistic logic.)
That's all I'm claiming - so far - just a level playing field.
So whether one sees onself as a "scientist", a "philosopher", a
"theologist", a "poet" or a "fjord designer" - the only test of truth
is the "quality of explanation".
Game on.
Ian
On 4/29/05, Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said "sure" so that would be a Yes.
> Sorry if I gave you too much info about my opinion but I am trying to be clear as possible
> about it so people don't misunderstand my post and jump in to
> "clarify" the issues at hand for me and my relatives.
>
> Erin
>
>
> ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Erin, you know well I made that very point myself - "missing the
> point" in some scientific questions in aethetic contexts. I've said a
> hundred times the fact that science "can" explain is not always
> (rarely) useful (valuable) above Pirsig's "bilogical" (life) line.
> Don't mischievously attribute rubbish to me. That's how viral memes
> spread and destroy truth.
>
> I merely asked you a straightforward question - one that could easily
> attract a yes or no.
>
> Anyways, since you introduce subjects other than "science" - no
> problem with poetic allusions, as good as any scientific metaphor in
> my book, better in many cases, scientists often (but NOT necessarily)
> lack imagination unfortunately - as with the "cornflowers" reference I
> made in the pervious post - I also rattled off a list of poets that
> understood the point, in another mail in the last few days -
> Coleridge, Wordsworth, Voltaire, Defoe, Blake to recall a few. Pay
> attention please. No conflict amongst art / poetry / science / quality
> - just the extremes of blind-logic and blind-religion that cause the
> problems IMHO, but that wasn't my question.
>
> Just answer the question.
> Or can I take it as "No"
>
> Ian
>
> On 4/28/05, Erin wrote:
> > Sure it can provide all the answers it wants but to me it is analagous to a
> > scientist trying to clarify what love is when the a poet might say "Love is
> > a rose". You can go ahead and talk all about what science has to say and
> > know about love but there is a time and place for everything and during a
> > poetry session or the mass are not the times. So you asking a priest to
> > clarify something in his mass dialague is analagous to me to asking a poet
> > to clarify his poem. It is a dogmatic request in my opinion and I still
> > hold that you would look like an idiot and be missing the point of it.
> >
> > As for the metaphor post, yes I read that book Metaphors we live by and
> > loved it also.
> > If everything is metaphors then why your statements of the real world/
> > literal world vs the metaphorical don't make sense to me. I don't think
> > the only problem is a religious person not recognizing that the religous
> > metaphor is a metaphor but also a scientist not recognizing that his
> > scientific metaphor is a metaphor.
> > The gist of the metaphor is the "truth" and I believe you can get to the
> > gist in ways other than science (science too though)
> >
> >
> > ian glendinning
> wrote:
> > Erin,
> >
> > You said
> > Science doesn't have all the answers and niether do you.
> >
> > I say fair enough, can't argue with that .... But do you see any
> > a-priori reason why science should be excluded from providing any such
> > answers ?
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On 4/26/05, Erin wrote:
> > > Metaphors are real, Science isn't the only way to truth just one path and
> > > I don't need it to explain every mystery to consider the mystery true or
> > > real. Science doesn't have all the answers and niether do you.
> > > Erin
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Steven Heyman
> > > wrote:
> > > msh:
> > > The combination of misunderstanding and disrespecting a point-of-view
> > > is always comical to me. Erin both misunderstands and disrespects
> > > Ant's comments, so, rather than requesting clarification, he/! she
> > > attacks, ad hominem:
> > >
> > > You must be a real hoot at a poetry reading. Everytimethere
> > > ispoetic use of a metaphor I can see you shouting out "Lies Lies
> > > all lies" you did not qualify your statement of "love is a rose"
> > > with "but only in the sense of a beinga non-scientifically known
> > > substance". Science can have something to say to say
> > > aboutthatmetaphor but the person would look like an idiot and
> > > bemissing the point of the poem.
> > >
> > > msh:
> > > Here's the unasked for clarification: Catholics who believe in
> > > transubstantion are NOT being metaphorical, or even poetic.
> > >
> > > Here's what Witt had to say:
> > >
> > > "If you don't know what the! fuck you're talking about, stop talking
> > > and ask, then listen..." - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-
> > > Philosophicus
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
>
> 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 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 07:14:06 BST