Roger,
Thanks for the response. I've just finished yet another read of ZAMM &
Lila. Had to buy a new copy of Lila. I'm always giving them away. Found it
in the Zen section of book store. That really burns me. At least it wasn't
in the New Age section. I just found this site, and am trying to get back
up to speed on all this. I seem to do this every few years. I do complex
systems modeling (and some times teach). I view these books and MOQ, along
with the Santa Fe efforts (John Holland's in particular) as fundamental to
successfully coping with this huge and important class of problems.
I'm very impressed with what I've seen on this site. I hope to visit often,
and will have many questions.
John W Livingston
-
----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Ant's Classic Science, Popper and the Swanp of Knowledge
Howdy John!
Several things...
1st, Ant's term of "science" is pretty broad. Obviously it can't possibly
include the opinion of every scientist that ever lived. As I read it he
is using it to mean "conventional scientific wisdom."
2nd, Popper -- who was a philosopher of science -- was a self-proclaimed
"critical realist". He recognized that realism is an assumption, but he
knowingly assumes it for practical reasons. It meets his test as the best
assumption until a better theory comes along. I believe that Pirsig and
Popper are very similar on this issue. Below are Pirsig's comments to Ant:
"When we speak of an external world guided by evolution it's normal to
assume that it is really there, is independent of us and is the cause of us.
The MOQ goes along with this assumption because experience has shown it to
be an extremely high quality belief for our time. But unlike materialist
metaphysics, the MOQ does not forget that it is still just a belief - quite
different from beliefs in the past, from beliefs of other present cultures,
and possibly from beliefs we will all have in the future. What will decide
which belief prevails is, of course, its quality."
Conventional scientists make this assumption -- frequently without
recognizing it as an assumption -- and then go on. Popper's brilliance was
that he recognized what his major assumptions were and evaluated them based
upon their quality as intellectual concepts. In general, I agree with you
that Pirsig and Ant's criticisms of science DO NOT APPLY to Popper.
I find the MOQ and science get along nicely. Pirsig and Popper improve the
philosophy of science by reminding us that our foundations can shift at any
time.
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
