my adviser in graduate school thought it was disingenuous for scientists to write in the third person, passive voice in order to give some false aura of impartiality as if to deny that the science is conducted by human beings
i don't think you sent me anything by chesterton but i could be wrong was it a book or an article? a hard copy or an email attachment?
i'd also be interested to know the title of the buddhist book you are reading
i am facing today a decision which i cannot postpone much longer competing agendas for labor day weekend should i go to hear thich nhat han (i can never remember how to spell his name) or go backpacking with david imel? i had sort of made up my mind to go backpacking (david is planning on it) but this morning i am reconsidering
maybe david would consider a two-day trip sunday and monday so that i could go to the talk on saturday
When Chesterton writes in the 3rd person, he's not merely summoning the authority of Science...but most likely God Hisself--now, that's an imprimitur. He's nearly amusing at times, in spite of his Britishness.
The idealist hints of modern physics are interesting--yet for all the spooky and/or Spinozaistic aspects of Einstein, Heisenberg and the quantum gang, the Golden Gate still stands. The cat doesn't levitate or walk through a wall.
Really one might argue that quantum indeterminacy (and pop-new agey quantum mystics) did not help the cause of the religious very much--order being preferable to dis-order, it would seem (even from a godly POV). Another reason not to reject Newtonian mechanics, however quaint.
i'm not sure where the quote emerges in the chesterton oeuvre but you can be assured he wasn't talking in the third person randomly he always had a target in mind
he was skeptical of scientific presumption he questioned the sense of "evolution" but he himself to use the 3rd person was a journalist and a poet
This is slightly offtopic but I'm interested in what you think of this epistle, penned by Fr. Beckwith, a catholic at Baylor U:Mormonism and natural law
you can probably guess my reaction (thumbs down)--and I say that as one who has some respect for "nat.law", at least as part of the occidental museum
it is evident that the writer defends a sort of wierd idea
natural law is hard to work with in basic politics i wish more people would try but it just doesn't work man cannot abide too much reality (to paraphrase eliot)
in catholic metaphysics (a word i could hardly lend to mormonism) it is unimaginable to think of a god who is bound by anything
we say he is the author of natural law he could change it
i don't know the writing of this linker chap but it would seem to me he's pointing in the right direction
nice that the catholics offer a friendly bow and some writing space to a mormon -- most hospitable
to know mormons is to know they do follow a moral code...it is largely healthy...family easy on the intoxicants social involvement
they are generally not appreciative of higher intellectual pursuit
i don't believe i've ever heard of a mormon philosopher or a mormon poet or a mormon literary historian
not that they don't exist i've just never heard of it
He was a conservative evangelical--he posted at an old site "Right Reason" for a while (GOP types who thought BushCo was too soft), and then converted to the RCC, like a year or so ago.
The theology chat is somewhat interesting--it's fairly evident that Smith's original visions had little or nothing to do with Christianity (cat. or evang.), and/or Reason. Ive posted a few things about mormonism and Romney on my blog (not so positive). Some of them are pleasant and hardworking--and sober --though the ordinary LDS folks are not...the Elders, and the modern LDS is not that of 100 years ago.
My view on the matter is not per Aquinas or Kant or a quantum physicist--but Sam Clemens, who was not too impressed with King Brigham. As Huck Finn said, you cain't pray a lie.
9 comments:
my adviser in graduate school
thought it was disingenuous
for scientists to write
in the third person, passive voice
in order to give some false aura
of impartiality
as if to deny
that the science is conducted
by human beings
i've often felt that the best scientists are those who have an interest in poetry
rachel carson
wes jackson
pure objectivity is an abstraction of the enlightenment
i guess heisenberg put an end to that
hopefully for good
didn't i send you orthodoxy by chesterton
if not
i must
i'm reading a buddhist critique of modern scientific thinking
i like it
i don't think you sent me
anything by chesterton
but i could be wrong
was it a book or an article?
a hard copy or an email attachment?
i'd also be interested
to know the title of
the buddhist book you are reading
i am facing today a decision
which i cannot postpone much longer
competing agendas for labor day weekend
should i go to hear
thich nhat han
(i can never remember
how to spell his name)
or go backpacking with david imel?
i had sort of made up my mind
to go backpacking
(david is planning on it)
but this morning
i am reconsidering
maybe david would consider
a two-day trip
sunday and monday
so that i could
go to the talk on saturday
why are decisions so hard for me?
pray for me bro
When Chesterton writes in the 3rd person, he's not merely summoning the authority of Science...but most likely God Hisself--now, that's an imprimitur.
He's nearly amusing at times, in spite of his Britishness.
The idealist hints of modern physics are interesting--yet for all the spooky and/or Spinozaistic aspects of Einstein, Heisenberg and the quantum gang, the Golden Gate still stands. The cat doesn't levitate or walk through a wall.
Really one might argue that quantum indeterminacy (and pop-new agey quantum mystics) did not help the cause of the religious very much--order being preferable to dis-order, it would seem (even from a godly POV). Another reason not to reject Newtonian mechanics, however quaint.
Hi S.
i'm not sure where the quote emerges in the chesterton oeuvre
but you can be assured he wasn't talking in the third person randomly he always had a target in mind
he was skeptical of scientific presumption he questioned the sense of "evolution" but he himself to use the 3rd person was a journalist and a poet
yo
jh
This is slightly offtopic but I'm interested in what you think of this epistle, penned by Fr. Beckwith, a catholic at Baylor U:Mormonism and natural law
you can probably guess my reaction (thumbs down)--and I say that as one who has some respect for "nat.law", at least as part of the occidental museum
{Hola S}
j
i think beckwith is a mormom
it is evident that the writer
defends a sort of wierd idea
natural law is hard to work with in basic politics
i wish more people would try
but it just doesn't work
man cannot abide too much reality
(to paraphrase eliot)
in catholic metaphysics
(a word i could hardly lend to mormonism)
it is unimaginable to think of a god who is bound by anything
we say
he is the author of natural law
he could change it
i don't know the writing of this linker chap
but it would seem to me he's
pointing in the right direction
nice that the catholics offer a friendly bow and some writing space to a mormon -- most hospitable
to know mormons is to know they do follow a moral code...it is largely healthy...family easy on the intoxicants social involvement
they are generally not appreciative of higher intellectual pursuit
i don't believe i've ever heard of a mormon philosopher
or a mormon poet
or a mormon literary historian
not that they don't exist
i've just never heard of it
jh
i think beckwith is a mormom
He was a conservative evangelical--he posted at an old site "Right Reason" for a while (GOP types who thought BushCo was too soft), and then converted to the RCC, like a year or so ago.
The theology chat is somewhat interesting--it's fairly evident that Smith's original visions had little or nothing to do with Christianity (cat. or evang.), and/or Reason. Ive posted a few things about mormonism and Romney on my blog (not so positive). Some of them are pleasant and hardworking--and sober --though the ordinary LDS folks are not...the Elders, and the modern LDS is not that of 100 years ago.
My view on the matter is not per Aquinas or Kant or a quantum physicist--but Sam Clemens, who was not too impressed with King Brigham. As Huck Finn said, you cain't pray a lie.
Post a Comment