Education distorting science and logic

[CaptJodan]

This semester, I'm taking a class called "Survey of Technical and Scientific Literature". It's on the track for recieving a technical writing degree. I thought it would be enjoyable but it has basically turned out to be anything but.

We're required to read three texts. The first we just recently finished called "White Noise" by Don DeLillo. The second, and current book we're on is called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." by Roberty M. Pirsig. Both of these books seem...I'm not sure quite how to describe them really. The first was described to me in class (online class) as metafiction, or fiction about fiction. The second hasn't been described yet, we've only just started it.

Basically, desipte asking the professor what the hell the point of this class is and getting a long winded response that said nothing that I could make out as being of benefit to a technical writer, I can't figure out what the point is.

What has been angering me throughout this entire process, and mostly the point of this post, is how the class is being taught. These books seem to make philosophical points which I can only see as utter crap. They seem to be making statements against technology, against progress, and most notably, against science and logic (as well as a little religion in reference to this current book). The assigments we're assigned take some of these concepts mentioned in the book and run with them. Below is an example of one of these assignments, and some of the text it applies to. Apologies that it is long, but I feel somewhat necessary to get the grasp on what I'm talking about.

The assignement is...

In his discussion of ghosts on page 34, Pirsig writes:

“If that law of gravity existed,” I say, “I honestly don’t know what a thing has to do to be noneexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn’t have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still ‘common sense’ to believe it existed.”

Please reread the next few pages that follow this quote and think about how Pirsig embellishes this idea. What is Pirsig saying about the things we believe to be true? How does he challenge our own belief systems in our present culture? Please be specific.

And some other quotes that are in the same area that he wants you to be looking at by reading those said pages.

"Oh, the laws of physics and of logic...the number system...the principle of algebraic substitution. Thesse are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real."

"Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense."

"Why does everyone believe in the law of gravity then?"
"Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as "education.""
"You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law of gravity?"
"Sure."

It goes on. "White Noise" was hardly better, in fact in many ways it was much worse. The characters were flat, lifeless, and completely unrealistic, which isn't to say that this book doesn't delve into that realm.

My question is, how does this help in a technical writing field? It seems I can't get through an entire chapter of one of these books without hitting a logical fallacy. What am I supposed to be taking away from assignments like this? It strikes me hard as being a class teaching you NOT to be logical, not to trust facts (they're all ghosts), "it's all an illusion", "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it really make a sound" type shit.

Am I just missing the point somehow? And if not, how do I deal with these things when the class and questions are structured in such a way that you can't go and say "he says this this and this, BUT he's a fucking loon for these reasons, we shouldn't take his opinion seriously?"
[/i]

[Keevan_Colton]

Postmodern fucking bullshit.

Great steaming piles of it.

It's the classic "Nothing can absolutely be proven to exist, therefore everything is equal" crap. The fact is that the probability of gravity effecting you is almost infinitely higher than pink faries magically carrying you off if you leap off a building.

This sort of shit is why I usually get an overwhelming urge to kick philosophers in the bollocks.

[Darth Raptor]

Measuring the effects of a theoretical force is not a criterion of existence? WTF?

[Darth Wong]

Classic anti-scientific religiously motivated tripe. To crow that the law of gravity does not exist is to disregard the entire concept of what an idea is. Ideas do not "exist" independently of human thought, yet that does not mean that they are any less true. For example, the statement "the sky is blue" is an idea. It has no meaning without humans to interpret it. Yet if you look at the definition of this idea, it is objectively accurate, and would be accurate even if no humans were around to interpret it.

[Keevan_Colton]

Classic anti-scientific religiously motivated tripe. To crow that the law of gravity does not exist is to disregard the entire concept of what an idea is. Ideas do not "exist" independently of human thought, yet that does not mean that they are any less true. For example, the statement "the sky is blue" is an idea. It has no meaning without humans to interpret it. Yet if you look at the definition of this idea, it is objectively accurate, and would be accurate even if no humans were around to interpret it.

But how do we know that blue isnt really red??? [/fuckwit with no employment prospects outside McD's or a Philosophy Dep.]

[Darth Wong]

But more seriously, the most concise way of refuting that bullshit is to point out that the law of gravity does not "exist" independently of human thought, but gravitational forces exist independently of human thought, and the law of gravity is merely a description of those forces.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I quite liked Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but thats just me.
It's all philosophy anyway, it could be worse.

[Yoda]

My brain almost imploded when I read that. The force of the stupidity is so strong it sucks in all rational thought in the area.

This reminds me of the people who believe the universe is just their dream ( can't remember thee name at the moment, my brain still hasn't recovered).

[Keevan_Colton]

My brain almost imploded when I read that. The force of the stupidity is so strong it sucks in all rational thought in the area.

This reminds me of the people who believe the universe is just their dream ( can't remember thee name at the moment, my brain still hasn't recovered).

The term is "People who need a swift kicking, along with a little reminder that they obviously hate themselves a lot since they imagined you into doing it." the alternates are "sollipsists" or "fucking wankers"

[CaptJodan]

My brain almost imploded when I read that. The force of the stupidity is so strong it sucks in all rational thought in the area.

This reminds me of the people who believe the universe is just their dream ( can't remember thee name at the moment, my brain still hasn't recovered).

Well see, and that's just my point. I've been on this site too long NOT to think of this stuff as a complete utter pile of bullshit. But when the prof isn't really allowing room for you to challenge those ideas, but may actually force you to support those ideas as if you agree with them, it really pisses me off. It's teaching the wrong lessons. He's basically taking this quote and saying we must agree with what it says, and why it has relevance in today's world. Except it doesn't. And it makes you dumber by trying.

I may decide to challenge the quote itself in an E-mail seperate from actual course work and see if I can't get some kind of concession from him that I can argue against it's real world value if I can bring up reasons as to why it's a terrible lesson to learn. I don't know if this is a good idea, mind you, but we already went through "White Noise" with themes that were not too far from this, and I fear that the third book won't be an improvement ("Double Helix" for any who have read it).

I quite liked Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but thats just me.

Ok, having read it, can YOU tell me how I'm supposed to learn from this? (note, I will likely not believe gravity is as Pirsig describes it, so don't even try that one) What is the relevance to technical writing...or anything?

[Kuroneko]

On mathematics specifically, things such as the number system and algebra only "seem real" in the sense that many mathematical constructs are applicable to real-world problems. This is quite a bit less than claiming that they are "real" in the sense of being independent from all sentient beings or somesuch. Mathematically, there is nothing to distinguish a system that is applicable to reality and one that is not. People may choose to study particular topic because they find them useful or simply interesting, but not because one is mathematically "true" while another is "false". From the standpoint of mathematics only, those labels are not applicable to mathematical systems except as a judgment of consistency with another mathematical system.

On science, there isn't much to add, except that I would not characterize Pirsig's writing as philosophy. An actual philosopher would at the very least attempt to examine the underlying logic of scientific realism, which does actually have some problems in its most naive conceptualization (e.g., it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent), and might even try to fix them (e.g., Fine's natural ontological attitude--"NOA", an arc to sail the scientific sea). Scientific antirealism does have some point in that standard realism is excessively metaphysical, but there are middle grounds between complete realism and anti-realism.

[CaptJodan]

I should note what the author actually says in the "Authors Note" in the beginning of the book.

What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as fact. However, it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles either.

If a book is going to manipulate the facts of both motorcycles and Zen Buddhism to make an erroneous point, I think it should cast in doubt whatever scientific facts he pretends to bring up then bend to the rule of whatever point he's trying to make. [/i]

[Psycho Smiley]

My Engineering Design (!!) prof suggested that we read Pirsig's book. I foolishly did so, cover to cover, in a few hours. I suppose I was hoping it would start to make some sort of sense at some point. Nope.

And even better (or worse?) my prof never raised the subject of the book again. I still don't know what I was supposed to get from it. Maybe I'll ask him about it the next time I see him.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I quite liked Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but thats just me.

Ok, having read it, can YOU tell me how I'm supposed to learn from this? (note, I will likely not believe gravity is as Pirsig describes it, so don't even try that one) What is the relevance to technical writing...or anything?

For a technical writing class I can't imagine it having any relavancy. But its good Mind-Aerobics none-the-less.
I really can't imagine why a Tech-writing class would make that a required reading.

[Darth Servo]

Mike, don't you have a challenge to such fuckwits to "temp the laws of gravity by jumping of the nearest skyscraper"?

[Metatwaddle]

May I suggest an excellent book? I promise it will make you feel better. It's called Fashionable Nonsense and it's by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. They take a lot of the worst anti-scientific attitudes from postmodern "intellectuals" and debunk them using calm, reasoned logic. (My personal favorite bit of idiocy is when some French woman says, "E = mc^2 is a sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally important to us." There's also a part where the erect penis is equated with the square root of -1.)

[Ryushikaze]

May I suggest an excellent book? I promise it will make you feel better. It's called Fashionable Nonsense and it's by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. They take a lot of the worst anti-scientific attitudes from postmodern "intellectuals" and debunk them using calm, reasoned logic. (My personal favorite bit of idiocy is when some French woman says, "E = mc^2 is a sexed equation because it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally important to us." There's also a part where the erect penis is equated with the square root of -1.)

Wow. I've heard some crazed postmodern crap in my day, but DAMN if that beats nearly all of it. How the hell was this conclusion arrived at?

[Kuroneko]

Wow. I've heard some crazed postmodern crap in my day, but DAMN if that beats nearly all of it. How the hell was this conclusion arrived at?

Mathematicians generally don't like to talk about it, but there are reasons why they find mathematics so... exciting. I'm actually a bit curious as well. It seems a bit curious that it is the woman herself that automatically identified privilege (however out of context that may be here) with gender.

[Darth Wong]

It's common knowledge among the science guys and engineers at university that the theoretical mathematicians are all crazy

[King Kong]

Wow. I've heard some crazed postmodern crap in my day, but DAMN if that beats nearly all of it. How the hell was this conclusion arrived at?

This is actually covered in a review of the book that Discombobulated mentioned by Richard Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain, so I'll quote it for your benefit. Basically, its insane rambling.

Thus, by calculating that signification according to the algebraic method used here, namely:

S (signifier)/s (signified) = s (the statement)

With S = (-1), produces: s = (-1)^(1/2)

In a further piece of reasoning which is entirely typical of the genre, Lcan goes on to conclude that the erectile organ

. . . is equivalent to the (-1)^(1/2) of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).

The same person, Luce Irigaray, who brought you 'E = mc^2 is a sexed equation', also wrote:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluid . . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

Naturally, this feminist 'philosopher' produced an ideal model of turbulent flow after communing with her vagina for several hours.

Basically, it's all academic fluff designed to confuse and hide their lack of actual knowledge.

[Hillary]

Surely as long as you examine the pieces logically and produce a technically sound critique on them, the professor can't mark you down.

Whether these books make any sort of scientific sense is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Your task is this.

"What is Pirsig saying about the things we believe to be true? How does he challenge our own belief systems in our present culture?"

Whether you believe his logic and methods are valid is not the point. You could answer this without voicing your opinion as to whether you think he is right or not if you wanted, although I would personally show where I felt the author was wrong.

Is it not possible that your professor is simply giving you patently unscientific literature so you can show where and why it is invalid?

[CaptJodan]

Whether you believe his logic and methods are valid is not the point. You could answer this without voicing your opinion as to whether you think he is right or not if you wanted, although I would personally show where I felt the author was wrong.

To the best of my ability, I did end up writing my assignment with this in mind. I did the best I could to keep my opinion out of it, and use Pirsig as the voice that was commenting on life.

The trouble really comes when I have to find real world relevance or "challenge" our beliefs. The passage doesn't challenge beliefs because it starts out with a scientifically unsound principle, and moves on rather quickly to extreme levels of BS. It's hard to find real world relevance in such things. I did end up writing something, but it's piss poor work.

Is it not possible that your professor is simply giving you patently unscientific literature so you can show where and why it is invalid?

That's the 6 million dollar question. At a glance with other questions I've seen in previous assignments, my gut would say no. They're always worded as if whatever we're reading really does have validity, whether it does or not.

I sent a seperate letter last night voicing some of my concerns for what we're reading to see what kind of response I get. I'd be overjoyed if he was actually looking to see someone challenge the books and whatever these beliefs are, but because I keep getting good marks (and good comments) on whatever I'm writing that tows his party line, I'm not hopeful that that is his goal here.

[mr friendly guy]

How does he challenge our own belief systems in our present culture?"

Very poorly.

[Darth Wong]

Just don't fall into the trap of dismissing those arguments without carefully explaining what's wrong with them. Pirsig challenges what he believes to be "our own belief systems", but he is in fact attacking a misrepresentation of how science works, so if science is the "belief system" in question, he is "challenging" it via a strawman fallacy.

[CaptJodan]

Just don't fall into the trap of dismissing those arguments without carefully explaining what's wrong with them. Pirsig challenges what he believes to be "our own belief systems", but he is in fact attacking a misrepresentation of how science works, so if science is the "belief system" in question, he is "challenging" it via a strawman fallacy.

In my argument, I attempted to attack the author's example of gravity. I constructed an argument that would allow me to present why his example of scientific truth was wrong, and then proceeded to basically demonstrate the conclusions he made from that were erroneous at best.

Because the book also attacks logic itself in the same way it attacks science "it's all a ghost", I refrained from actually going and pointing out the specific fallacies and focused mainly on the scientific inaccuracies, and why the very idea he's trying to relate (nothing's provable so every idea is valid) isn't valid. If he responds, I'll likely post it.