>The object of James F.'s criticism here is not 'a bit of doubt,' unless you
>want to argue that 'radical skepticism' means the same thing as 'a bit of
>doubt.' Criticizing radical skepticism in no way precludes 'a bit of
>doubt' in one's inquiry, I'd think. Or is your argument that doubt is
>unquantifiable after all (despite your wording) and therefore that a
>criticism of radical skepticism is in effect the same as an exclusion of 'a
>bit of doubt' and qualifies automatically as unthinking 'dogmatism'?
Nope. But it's been very interesting to see who bristles at the word "dogmatism." The very people most likely to be accused of it seem most eager to object to its use.
>The Foucauldian struggle against the 'regime of truth' is not about having
>'a bit of doubt' about truth. Foucault and other postmodernists refuse to
>make the science/ideology distinction, which, pace Angela, Marx did make
>(anyone remembers the distinction of scientific vs. utopian socialisms?).
>And that's the problem, because postmodernists can't defend the validity of
>their argument, nor do they practice what they say.
Can one admire & learn from "Foucault and other postmodernists" without getting lost in indistinction? For some reason, I'm reminded of that wonderful bit from A.R. Ammons' "Sphere," where Matthew Arnold leaps out from behind the bushes, reminding us to preserve the essential distinctions.
>What should compel our assent to Angela's or postmodernists' dogmatic
>assertions supported by neither evidence nor arguments?
Guns? Hey, it worked for Uncle Joe!
Doug