From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 18:03:33 BST
Hi David:
You conclude: "You're a fan, I'm not."
Andy: Well, I think fan is overstating it a bit. I admire Darwin and from what
you have said I assume you admire him also. We also both seem to agree that the
Darwinian research program has been useful and should be maintained.
You said: "It is also very important to put science in its SOM context. It is SOM
based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the characteristics
split off from reality and dumped into the subject. There are other approaches
to reality, MOQ being a broader one than SOM. Above all I think SOM is derived
from a fear of Becoming/contingency that is built up by theistic thinking and
the idea of God as the master of contingency, that is taken up in the notion of
the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism without the subject, that
produces scientific materism, that is a view of reality with one of your eyes
shut. There's a potted history of 2,500 years of thought for you."
Andy: Yeah, I was kinda waiting for your arguments to denegrate to this.
Looking to Pirsig for an authority and trying to lump Darwinism in with SOM and
then looking to Scott and throwing Scientific Materialism in to boot. I have
already gone about with this approach. Dueling Dogmas. We won't get anywhere.
Suffice it to say, I don't think you will find Pisig anywhere condemning
Darwinism. Many Darwinists could be inspired by the ideas found in Pirsigs work
and many also might think he was influenced to some extent by Darwin. One
long-time contributer to the discussion who we heard from this morning (Jonathon
Marder) finds Pirsigs MOQ completely compatable with Darwinism and his opinion
is usually considered a voice of reason from all sides here.
Thanks,
Andy
D
> Hi
>
> I said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
> > believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
> > experience."
> >
> > Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
> rephrase?
>
> I mean that if you were from another universe and only read science books
> you would have very little idea what a human being was like.
>
> I am probably mainly concerned with the populist neo-Darwinist presentation
> of
> speculation as informed by science. It is not what I call science. I think
> a lot of people are very mislead by them. Whan I said it is annyoing, I
> meant it is annoying for
> neo-Darwinists that they can only discuss important aspects of human
> existence via
> speculation, I think the nature of these speculations make Darwinism
> less-reputable
> than it might otherwise be. And once again, its a theory, it is not very
> convincing, and
> a lot of research is done in a Darwinian framework only because no one has
> come up
> with a better idea. We constantly get fed the aspects of Darwinism that are
> plausible,
> although not on this excellent site, a more rounded view would also discuss
> its limitations.
> You're a fan, I'm not. It is also very important to put science in its SOM
> context. It is SOM
> based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the
> characteristics split off from reality
> and dumped into the subject. There are other approaches to reality, MOQ
> being a broader
> one than SOM. Above all I think SOM is derived from a fear of
> Becoming/contingency that
> is built up by theistic thinking and the idea of God as the master of
> contingency, that is taken up
> in the notion of the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism
> without the subject, that produces
> scientific materism, that is a view of reality with one of your eyes shut.
> There's a potted history of
> 2,500 years of thought for you.
>
> DM
> science claims
> >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <abahn@comcast.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
>
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Ok. So for the most part we agree. But I still want to quibble with you.
> >
> > You said: "The 'annoying ' reference is that it is annoying that Darwinism
> > is the best theory we have in orthodox science, that we want
> > to discuss the way evolution effects life but we are stuck with
> > an inadequate theory when we try to do so."
> >
> > Andy: Well, You want to do some things and biologists want to do other
> things.
> > I don't have any attachment to Darwinism, I just don't understand why
> everyone
> > gets so emotional about it. Pick any theory in science and we can work
> around
> > the edges looking for faults. In fact this is the role of science. I
> don't see
> > how Darwinism or evolution is any different from relativity, QUantum
> mechanics,
> > or any theory you want to choose. None of them are airtight, none of them
> > answer the specific question you want answered, so all of them can be
> described
> > as inadequate by some perspective. WHy is everyone so wigged out about
> > Darwinism? I want to suggest that it is not Darwinism that is the
> source of
> > your annoyance, but rather the annoyance resides in you. Charles Bukowski
> says,
> > "Only the boring get bored." Could we also say, "Only the annoying get
> > annoyed." I am not calling you annoying, I am saying you have misplaced
> the
> > source for your annoyance.
> >
> > You said: "The problem I suspect is that we are prepared to talk about
> human
> > beings acting with purpose but for metaphysical reasons we do not seem to
> think
> > that purpose plays a role anywhere else in nature."
> >
> > Andy: Purpose in nature to me sounds too much like design. That might be
> my
> > problem. But, I just don't know how there can be a purpose in nature
> without
> > going outside nature. To some ultimate view. ANd I don't want to do
> that.
> > That seems like a much bigger problem.
> >
> > You said: "The point about Sheldrake is that he proposes a way in which
> we can
> > begin to see how purpose and dynamic driven reality might find its way
> into
> > laying down static patterns in a way more likely to produce evolution than
> the
> > information passed in genes."
> >
> > Andy: I found Sheldrake fascinating when I read his work. I have his
> book.
> > But I was waiting for biologists to also find his work exciting. Perhaps
> his
> > day is yet to come. But so far biologist have not found his ideas very
> useful.
> > In fact, they seem to have systematically refuted his every point. I
> think
> > philosophers find Sheldrake more interesting than Darwin. But what should
> this
> > say about philosophers?
> >
> > You said: "Genes according to neo-Darwiniam orthodoxy do not record
> information
> > from the environment in any direct way, they only mutate randomly and then
> pass
> > on those genes that happen to survive."
> >
> > Andy: Genes do much more than this from my understanding. I think both of
> us
> > have a very superficial understanding of how genes, mutations and natural
> > selection works. But, biologists, obviously find neo-Darwinism very
> useful for
> > the work they do. This is a strong enough endorsement for the orthodoxy
> for me.
> > Why should philosophers and historians of science dictate what theory
> > biologists should use because we are confused by the non-biological
> questions we
> > are asking?
> >
> > You said: "Sheldrake asks if there is a mechanism for passing on
> onformation
> > form one generation to the next about the structure of the organism at a
> higher
> > level than genes."
> >
> > Andy: And Sheldrake should be commended for asking that question.
> >
> > You said: "At the present time it is not possible to answer this question
> due to
> > our limited understanding of ontogenesis and morphogenesis."
> >
> > Andy: Are you sure about this? And if you are, what does this mean to
> > biologists and the work they are doing? Does this throw a kink in their
> work?
> > Is it going to cause the whole Darwinist world view to come crashing down?
> I
> > really don't think so. Darwinism has weathered much stronger criticisms
> and
> > attacks than this over its century and a half existence. Like I said, I
> think
> > the most amazing aspect of Darwinism is how many of Charles Darwin's
> original
> > ideas have managed to remain intact through all the years of criticisms.
> > Particularly when it seems he was just going upon conjecture without
> having the
> > evidence of genes, dna, or everything we have subsequently found in the
> fossil
> > records. You want to talk about wasps being amazing, and I agree, but I
> find
> > this pretty damn amazing too.
> >
> > You said: "PS I do not use the word truth, I prefer to ask plauisible
> > explanation, and a lot of the problem I have with science (apart from
> loving it)
> > is that it is always talking as if closure is around the corner,"
> >
> > Andy: I agree that this is a problem when some scienctists talk like
> this.
> > However, I don't think all scientists talk like this. I am not even sure
> if a
> > majority of them do.
> >
> > You said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
> > believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
> > experience."
> >
> > Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
> rephrase?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > 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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 18:04:32 BST