Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Fri 15 Jul 2005 12:20 PM PDT
From: MICHAEL MIOVIC (mmiovic@yahoo.com)
Date: July 15, 2005 7:11:06 AM PDT
To: rjon@vzavenue.net
Subject:
Re: Request for help from those who are familiar with both biological
science and Integral Yoga
Don, I would just stand outside the debate between these
two sets of biologists, the ones you originally cited and the
professor's replies. Accept the technical corrections from your critics
that are valid (i.e., make sure your wording is precise, thank them for
the input, and move on. In fact, you can cite both your original
statements and the critiques as a case in point of how well-trained
scientists can come to different conclusions about the same (or
similar) sets of data. Even putting aside evolution & consciousness
studies, science is in constant flux & debate even within the
mainstream materialist model and technically speaking nothing is known
for sure--whatever is known today could be altered tomorrow by new
experimental findings.
Readers need to be periodically reminded
that sciene is not a conclusion but a process that proceeds by the
experimental method. All you have to do is acknowledge all the voices
and perspectives in the debate, show that the debate is ongoing, point
out the simple problems of metaphysics that frame all interpretations
of data, and then present your own framework. What can any thinking
person say against you if you identify your interpretive framework and
acknowledge that as yet there is no definitive experimental evidence
for or against it (or for or against any other framework for that
matter)? This is elementary. My experience these last 4 years of
writing has been that if you are clear, acknowledge opposing
viewpoints, and proceed with confidence to present your own--people
will listen. There are many, many silent members of the audience who
have a visceral sense of "good, honest work". Don't focus too much on
the few strident critics of your work.
Naturally you will get
objections, to which you can reply "yes, this is a well articulated
materialist [insert framework of choice] interpretation of the data,
and we have always acknowledged the value of that framework.
Nonetheless, there are other potentially valid frameworks as well..."
Get an expert comment on the specifics if you can, but if you can't,
then simply acknowledge the limitation of your expertise and move on.
Model interpretative pluralism in your own textual process, and your
work will find a receptive audience somewhere, sometimes.
michael
Attachment: