>
> Please don't take offense at what may seem to you to be insultingly obvious
> statements. I am just trying to be clear. I am not being condescending. If
> one cannot express one's honest views in this medium it cannot be good for
> much else.
That's your opinion, why try to tag it on me?
>
>>. . .You are going to pretend to not be judgemental because
>>you choose to play the "value free" objectivity game? Sorry for trying to
>>be honest.
>
> Don't be sorry for the wrong reasons! I said that a "a judgemental view
> tends to block perception" because that is the fact in terms of
> communications theory and practice, and I think it may also apply to the
> present misunderstandings.
Seems like I do everything wrong! I'm even sorry for the wrong reasons!
I'll try harder.
> I do not and did not pretend to be non-judgemental, i.e. to be "value
> free". Indeed if you read my previous posting that was its main point! It
> was to indicate where I think the firm reference point of values should be,
> i.e. in supporting dynamic processes of creative freedom.
I don't know what you are talking about, no ammount of readind will make
that last phrase ("i.e. ...) comprehensible. I guess I'm not able
to see your point.
>What you have
> done is to classify my postion in terms of one previously known to you,
> which is not what I said or meant, implied I was playing games, and put
> yourself in the position of being "honest"! These would be the tricks of a
> con game. This can be a real problem for persons who can only see what they
> already know - present company of course excepted! - and have no broader
> response repertoire for new perceptions and ideas.
>
I guess my "con" is not useful. I should go back to realizing that I
"shoot from the hip" and you are correct. ?????????
>>Science is at least three things.
>>1) what scientists do.
>>2)what scientists believe.
>>3)some collective of ideas accumulated over time in the name of science.
>
> Thank you for leaving this description still somewhat open! While I would
> not disagree with the above I would also say they fail to "characterize"
> science as distinct, let us say, from religion. The distinction of science
> lies more precisely in the defining ideas of scientific methodology and
> openness to ongoing evidence and dialogue. Some scientists believe in
> bizarre things, and scientists often disagree, but they have methods and
> criteria that tend to bind them to what is accepted as science. My view is
> that these methods themselves should be governed by similar criteria, i.e.
> be open to revision in the light of broader considerations.
I'm really lost now! I though YOU were trying to distinguish science from
religion, not me?
>
>>>We work within a belief structure so effective that most of
>>>us believe that we don't.
>
> [and then]
>
>>I was refering to us scientists with the "we". I don't see how any of
>>what you say pertains.
>
> Scientists are human beings with certain specialized education. There is no
> evidence that this specialized training changes the nature of the belief
> structures and associated problems that belong to all human beings. My
> point was that the general principles involved in excessive faith in
> rational appraoches to life and human relationships apply to all human
> beings.
>
Priests are human beings with certain specialized education. You say
the content differs? So does it between Catholicism and Bhudism.
>>>. . .with fundamentalism on the rise everywhere,
>>>I won't venture a prediction of the outcome.
>
> [and then]
>
>>There is a "fundamentalism" in the scientific religion as well.
>
> O.K. but this is not the fundamentalism implied in your previous statement,
> and seems to me argumentative in relation to the nature of science.
>
fundamentalism 1 does not equal fundamentalism 2 does not equal ....
yet they are all fundamentalism.
> To me a "scientific religion" is very paradoxical. Science does not include
> the possiblity of knowledge by direct revelation, whereas many religions
> consider it of the essence.
I couldn't agree more! what a paradox! So many scientists write about
having had "insight" abd then having had to cast their findings in a form
consistent with the "scientific method" . This literature is vast.
As we explore associative memory mechanisms, even as primitive as
in artificial neural networks, we begin to see what thjis process might
be like. Also why slogans and sound bites are so effective.
>
>>The "suffer" I meant was that which comes from neglecting something
>>important, not that which comes from struggling to understand.
>
> But this is not relevant to the point I was making, which was that the
> avoidance of suffering, while certainly desirable, is not necessarily a
> higher value of life. Again, far from being "value-free", my subject was
> precisly concerned with governing purposes and values.
>
> As I said, I see this discussion as somewhat of a puzzle, and I am
> providing some feedback according to my lights, for what it's worth, which
> must depend as much upon the reader as upon me. I hope that it may have
> some general interest, but I think it is probably exhausted for a general
> forum.
>
I'm sorry you see this as peripheral. I failed to get you to see that
it might indeed be central to all we do. So, I'll keep trying and try
not to deflect us too far from "important" topics. I also like
crossword puzzles and computer games. Often, as I distract myself from
my "important" problems, I seem to facilitate those insights we all need
to get get anywhere. Which of us is taking the limiting position?
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky