>Looking at human history I see the "common sense" of culture and >religion as much a source of dissension as of "human stability". But >perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, >culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at >some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and >in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the >universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light >of fresh reliable information.
I think common sense has a lot going for it. E.g. "I'm not going to try to jump from this cliff to that one because I probably won't not make it." "I think I will call 911 and let the police handle it instead of me trying to intervene on my own." "I think I will let the mechanic do my brakes just in case I don't do it right on my own." --- No formal science or experimentation needed. I would also say that politics and money has provided far far more sources of conflict than religion ever has or ever will. And that the positive value of religion for individuals and groups far outweighs any harm caused by such religions. I would also say that a scientific understanding of nature and the universe has got pretty much nothing to do with quelling the sources of human conflict and is indeed incapable of doing so. Arguably, money spent on the space program would be better spent on health care. Do we really need to spend the billions of dollars on yet another particle accelerator and related experiments so physicists can keep their jobs? --Mike On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Allen Esterson < [email protected]> wrote: > ��¨Michael Sylvester wrote: > >The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite > >the common sense of culture, religion and other factors that propels > >human stability. > > Looking at human history I see the "common sense" of culture and > religion as much a source of dissension as of "human stability". But > perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, > culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at > some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and > in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the > universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light > of fresh reliable information. > > For > example, the small society in this article is no doubt stable (both > for individuals and collectively), but at a cost that many of us would > rather not experience ourselves (for instance, it hardly allows for > divergent thinking!): > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm > > There is nothing in principle in the scientific perspective that makes > it "obstinate and obdurate" – one would hope that at its best it is > quite the reverse. Though such modes of thought first arose in Europe > it is now an essential part of many non-European cultures, the educated > classes of which rightly regard it as universal, and not specifically > European. In any case, a perspective in psychology (say) that di > d not > allow for, indeed investigate, factors due to culture and religion > (more likely to be a source of common unsense than common sense :-) ) > would be lacking an important dimension of human behaviour. I don't > think so-called "Eurocentric" modes of thought necessarily exclude such > factors – they certainly shouldn't. But "common sense" in trying to > make sense of the physical world is one of the factors that the > scientific perspective has often had to displace to produce consistent > (reliable) knowledge. Otherwise we would still be left with imaginative > stories about how the natural world works that remain obstinate and > obdurate. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Sou > thwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
