From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 18:18:14 BST
Hi Andy
I am much happier with what you are saying now you
have developed it further. I think the thing I am most
uncomfortable about neo-Darwinism is its application
outside biology. So I think we agree on this. OK I confess,
I have been picking on Darwinism because it
tends to get used in this way more than other aspects of
science. I also have no desire no throw out anything
science has achieved to date. A materialist approach is
useful and successful in science because of its
simpicity, in terms of clear object identities, quantifiable
values and point locations. However, even particles have
proved to be more complex than the structure of this model.
So fields with spread out locations, indeterminable momentums,
and the process effects of thermodynamics and chaos theory
have put together a whole new picture. Science is ceasing to be
materialist. It is unfortunate that some scientists outside of the physical
sciences often talk/write from the point of view of a classical
conceptual framework that is ceasing to be applicable to the levels
of enquiry now being examined. Materialist ideas are really only an
approximation about how fairly large bodies interact. Consequently,
there is some prospect for studies at the molecular/gene level to seriously
change what has been proposed at the very large-scale level that
Darwinism deals with. I think we live in interesting times, and I think
the Darwinists might find that a rethink is not that far off. As for the
uses of Darwinism,
I have to suspect that most research that is currently undertaken is pretty
independent of
any Darwiniam context, i.e. that you could do the same molecular, cell,
tissue research
without any reference to Darwin. There must be some research on genetic
mutations
and gene selection but you just having got the appropriate timescales to add
or detract
anything conclusive from Darwin, so in fact I might argue that Darwinism is
fairly
irrelevant to scientific research. it has a place in the common
consciousness that is
perhaps out of proportion. Especially when it is used out of context by
certain rather
speculative popular science writers. I still feel that we do not have
anything like
a complete picture of how evolution occurs. In a way Darwinism just seems
too
simple a mechanism to account for the most complex systems in the
cosmos:life.
NB I think Paul Davies' point is that 'matter' is falling out of the
explanatory stories
we tell in science.
Regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> Hi again David M,
>
> DM: "sorry, thought this was a Pirsig site."
>
> Andy: It is. I came to the site because I, like many people, was inspired
by
> Pirsig. Often times the discussions goes pretty far off-field. Then
someone
> reminds us that it is a Pirsig site. But in the spirit of DQ, I think it
is
> wrongheaded to try and keep the discussion within certain bounds. Not
that this
> is what you are doing. I am just making an observation that there is a
very
> eclectic group of people who have wandered through here and a vast amount
of
> topics have been discussed.
>
> From my perspective, after many people's input, there is still not much
> universal agreement on exactly how the MOQ is suppose to be incorporated
in our
> society. The only consensus I have found is that Pirsig's ideas
stimulated
> almost every contributer to further their own intellectual pursuits.
Since,
> everyone comes to the table with different pursuits and experiences, it is
no
> wonder we often see people applying Pirsigs ideas to seeming opposing
worldviews.
>
> DM: "I am pretty sure that Darwinism is discussed in Lila and placed in
the
> larger context of MOQ to show its limitations."
>
> Andy: or to demonstrate its strengths
>
> DM: "But I can't be bothered to have a look at the moment."
>
> Andy: Well, I can empathize with that. I am usually happy with just the
> initial impression I got from reading ZMM and Lila. I can't go around
giving
> quotes. I appreciate it when other people do. But this just seems to
take the
> fun out of it for me.
>
> DM: "I was trying to break this chat out of a narrow line of argument. I
have
> read Pirsig in the last few months, my views are not from Pirsig at all
> I merely translated them into the language he uses."
>
> Andy: OK
>
> DM: "I as also saying that my problem is with the whole of science not
just
> Darwin. The problem is that science should be placed in its box as only
one form
> of knowledge."
>
> Andy: Well this is the problem I have been having with both you and Scott.
Your
> leveling of scinetific materialism at Darwinism seems to me to blow all of
> science out of the water. It can't just hit Darwinism only, but all of
science
> as we know it. Scott has vehemently denied this, but now you are
confirming it.
>
> I seem to have gotten the wrong impression of Scott's view of Darwinism.
He
> mentions this morning that it is fine for biology, just inadequate for
> psychology. My whole point to him was not to use a theory out of its
context.
> Or expect it to do something it was never intended for. Because of the
> success's in biology, theorists in other fields have, and rightfully so,
have
> attempted to apply this to other fields. This has often been met with
failure.
> Thus we get social Darwinism, the defense of free markets based on
Darwin,
> Politics, etc. But, this does not take away from the success of Darwinism
in
> explaining the biological world. Scott now seems to be conceding this
point or
> else he has has been saying this all along and I just missed it. But you
are
> now saying that materialism is a default inherent in ALL science.
>
> Perhaps, materialism is the reason we don't have as much success in the
social
> sciences as the natural sciences using the scientific method. I think it
is
> obvious that any mechanistic or reductive approach to psychology will be
met
> with failure. Scott's example of going to the smallest unit demonstrates
this,
> but he is using ideas and theories established in physics to explain
> consciousness and psychology. Of course, he will find that we need a
> non-materialistic aspect to explain these things using this approach. I
don't
> think he needed to offer his proof. There is plenty of evidence in the
> humanities already of the failure of mechanistic approaches to social and
> psychological phenomena. Theories in the natural sciences do not easlily
> transfer over to the social sciences. But, I don't think anyone is ever
going
> to define what this nonmaterial aspect is. You can call it quality,
beauty or
> freedom if you like, but these all mean different things to different
people.
>
> So, I totally agree with there is more to knowledge (although, I would
> substitute knowledge with explaining experience)than science, but I refuse
to
> condemn all of science (espicially, as it is used in the natural sciences)
and
> think we should do without it and I don't think Pirsig was saying this
either.
> Scientific theories are used because they are the most useful applications
for
> solving problems in the material world. Darwinism is among those theories.
Do
> you agree with this?
>
> DM: "We can only have knowledge of what we experience, what we experience
is far
> richer than what can be measured."
>
> Andy: Agreed
>
> DM: "I enjoy science but have found philosophy and literature far richer
in
> terms of understanding human beings."
>
> Andy: Me too!
>
> DM: "The sort of stuff the populist neo-Dariwnists write is just
philistine."
>
> Andy: Now here you go again. Philistine from MerriumWebster: "a person
who is
> guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or
artistic
> values b : one uninformed in a special area of knowledge." Sorry I had to
look
> it up.
>
> So, now we are separating populist neo-Drwinists from, What?...Scientific
> neo-Darwinist. I don't know how to talk about either one because I don't
know
> where to draw the line. Maybe we should draw a line between Darwinism as
it is
> used in the biological community and Darwinism as it is used outside of
this
> community. Regardless I think we can stick with our agreeing that
neo-Darwinists
> are up to some useful things over there in the biological community. Can
we
> leave it at that?
>
> DM: "And as for materialism, as the physicist Paul Davies says, to
paraphrase:
> the cocept of matter can probably now be described as a myth."
>
> Andy: Hey! I like that. In fact, I think it could always have been
described
> as a myth. Its part of the story we tell explaing our experience.
Matter,
> Darwin, Science...all of it. I just wish you would quit singling out
Darwiniwm
> at the expense of the rest of science (or what we might replace it with)
to make
> your point.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> > Hi
> >
> > sorry, thought this was a Pirsig site.
> > I am pretty sure that Darwinism is discussed
> > in Lila and placed in the larger context of MOQ
> > to show its limitations. But I can't be bothered to have a look
> > at the moment. I was trying to break this chat
> > out of a narrow line of argument. I have read Pirsig
>
> > in the last few months, my views are not from Pirsig at all
> > I merely translated them into the language he uses.
> > I as also saying that my problem is with the whole of science
> > not just Darwin. The problem is that science should be
> > placed in its box as only one form of knowledge. We can only
> > have knowledge of what we experience, what we experience is far
> > richer than what can be measured. I enjoy science but have
> > found philosophy and literature far richer in terms of understanding
> > human beings. The sort of stuff the populist neo-Dariwnists write
> > is just philistine. And as for materialism, as the physicist Paul Davies
> > says,
> > to paraphrase:
> > the concept of matter can probably now be described as a myth.
> >
> > regards
> > DM
> >
>
>
> 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 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 18:22:25 BST