This will probably be my last post on this issue. I thank all those who responded and those who wrote to me off-list and apologise for leaving your response hanging (if I do). I have a beautiful book about primes that I am reading, which made me go back and read the biography of Ramanujan ... which was a wonderful relief. Thank dog for mathematics and mathematicians ;-).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: Andy F, Dwayne Monroe, Carrol Cox, EverYoung Global Intellectual Enterprises, Charles Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this group
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
* Re: [lbo-talk] The Mojito's Seductive Charms (was, science,
* Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 4/10/06 1:33 pm, Andy F wrote:
> On 10/3/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>> I can live with the provisional definition of "fact" offered above. Note
>> that Stephen Jay Gould took the trouble to go out and make his case to
>> the general public in favour of evolution, and against creationism (in
>> particular against teaching creationism in schools, especially in lieu
>> of evolutionary theory).
>
> How is that relevant to this discussion?
>
It is relevant in that you have to make your case (and I add: leave it at that), as opposed to a general displeasure with people's attitude to "science" and "truth".
>> I have one of two tacks: either abandon the term "science" to those who
>> want to push "Science" over all else, or reclaim "science" as one of the
>> various human activities that we all benefit from. I am attempting to do
>> both: the little guy is a scientist in the best (and inclusive) sense of
>> that term, and he is not one in the sense in which science is defined as
>> a particular well-differentiated object or system with exclusive claims
>> (to truth, certainty, etc). I constructed my description above exactly
>> to tease you (and those like you: perhaps Jerry and Dwayne ;-)) towards
>> my POV.
>
> It sounds like we're left with a debate over terminology, and again I
> have to suggest you're after a whale what hain't bit you.
>
Where do you see me complaining about [metaphoric] whales biting me? I am not bitten in any sense. As I point out above, it could either be a debate over terminology or if that is infeasible (i.e., one camp has a lock on the term) then it has to be a debate over their use of the terminology, which is a very different thing.
> I'll leave you with something Chomsky, that Swiss army knife of
> citations, wrote for Z Magazine in the context of debates about pomo
> and antirationalism vs. science. (Barbara Eherenreich also mentions
> the role of elegance in science.) It's replying to more aggressive
> arguments than yours and so perhaps overshoots in this case, but I
> think addresses some of your concerns. I'd go so far as to say it
> even backs up some of what you've written.
Indeed it does: Chomsky, I mean. I have no interest (and here I do not mind being emphatic) in Ehrenreich or the other members of that gang (Albert got into it too, IIRC, perhaps also Nussbaum). I have read many times over Chomsky in Z Mag and elsewhere, on pomo etc. While I think he carries his usually productive false naivete too far (such as in his belief that however difficult someone can teach you quantum physics, but he cannot comment on pomo because he just can't learn it at all), he is saying very similar things as I am. You have in fact taken the trouble to exactly highlight those two parts that I am talking about: on the one hand the creation of an X, while on the other the difference between this X and what really goes on. The only point where Chomsky and I differ, I think, is on who created the X. Chomsky I think believes that the pomo gang has created X as a caricature to attack, whereas I think X is a result of scientism. I think many (if not most) [post-Kuhnian] philosophers of science (and the pre-Kuhnian Russell, Chomsky's hero) may agree more with me.
It should also be remembered that criticisms of pomo etc too involves the creation of a Y, which is either unrelated to what really goes on (criticism of "science") or includes a random grab bag of fields.
Outside the halls of academia, it remains relevant and important to consider: cui bono?
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 4/10/06 7:35 am, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> How about this as a fairly strong ,universal ,scientific truth: all humans
> are born of the union of an "egg" and a "sperm" ?
>
I am not sure, even scientifically speaking... by "are" do you mean "thus far"? There is no reason to doubt that external DNA can be spliced into the egg without a sperm, in the future. Or that a foetus can be generated using DNA without an egg or a sperm. Oliver Sacks, IIRC, documents beautifully the history of relevant research where a commitment to the idea of DNA as the atom of life hindered/delayed the ultimate discovery of RNA replication in viruses. I am leaving out here the issue of what it is that is "human".
Speaking more generally this sort of "scientific" truth seems to be no different than the pre/non-scientific truth that "the earth is, approximately speaking, round" or "we are all going to die someday" or "there is a 3 post quota on LBO for general subscribers".
There is a danger with these particulars (examples) because their proximity and current hold blind us to potential errors. Though it is possible that a casual LBO conversation might find fundamental flaws in the terms, reasoning or theoretical underpinnings of a particular biological claim, we should not proceed on that hope ;-).
=========== Message 3 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
Jerry,
great points! Interestingly enough, there are some philosophers (Churchland comes to mind) who are engaged in the intellectual process of presenting folk psychology as a philosophy of mind ;-). I found your words about art/poetry interesting, also.
=========== Message 4 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 3/10/06 12:09 pm, EverYoung Global Intellectual Enterprises wrote:
> Hi Ravi!
> The only absolute truth is that no truth is absolute.
>
You said it!
=========== Message 5 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 2/10/06 8:02 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> Is it 'scientism' that under-values these
> contributions or, fundamentally, the tendency for some
> (most?) human societies to be organized for the
> benefit of elites?
>
I think it is that tendency. 10,000 years ago (and in some activities, even today) this is accomplished through simple physical power. But perhaps it is true that scientism predates modern science. I believe that physical power or the claims of scientism are devices. The thing to be vigilant about is therefore not science but how it is used and what claims are made in its name (such as claims about "truth", among other things).
> Perhaps it isn't 'scientism' you should be dissecting
> - 'scientism' might only be a shiny new set of clothes
> for a tired old bastard who never leaves us alone.
Yes, indeed. I mentioned in one of my first posts that I was not worried
so much about science or scientism as I am about means of elite power. It just so happens that today "establishment" science (among other things) wields enormous power. And it is a cause for concern when you see its priests come out with material such as the "No Alternatives" post that Doug forwarded a while ago.
>
> You asked, by way of an example of science and
> non-science, about the difference between astrology
> and astronomy. How do we know which is true and which
> false?
>
Someone introduced the astronomy vs astrology example... I wouldn't use it myself because I do not know enough about astrology to comment on its validity and utility. There are other examples such as the stuff we visited in the discussion on the "No Alternative" thread, such as tribal cures vs establishment medicine cures.
> Now, I think you're arguing that the astrological
> explanation (again, taken only as an example of
> non-scientific activity) shouldn't be de-valued
> because it's part of what ordinary folk do. And if by
> that you mean, simply, people shouldn't be rude (for
> example, astronomers throwing "Astrologers Suck!" beer
> bashes) I agree.
Well, that would be a start, definitely. Rudeness as an attitude (as opposed to the occasional finger to the guy who cuts you off on the road) is not a simple matter... it runs counter to other very important sustaining attitudes that it (and what justifies it: being a bit more correct than the other fellow) does not replace.
> But if you're saying that we should re-consider the
> way astrology - and other practices considered foreign
> to the the scientific endeavor - were tossed out of
> the inner circle of what's officially considered truth
> than I'll have to disagree in the strongest terms.
I think it is difficult to come up with a 'we' here. If we are to live in a sort of socialistic community then we should choose to expend our resources in directions of maximal utility while keeping a bit of an open mind about alternatives. This is a purely pragmatic issue and needs no reference to [grandiose notions of] truth. On the other hand, if we are speaking from an individual viewpoint, then we have no option but to tolerate (in the best sense of that term) all ("all" in the context in which we speak here, not as a starting point on Nazism) multiple viewpoints.
> Ravi, I'm sure you're sincere in your pursuit of this
> question but I'm wondering what your ideal state is.
> That is to say, what sort of world do you dream of
> when you dream of the end of the 'scientism' rainbow?
That's a tough one... I am not a utopian sort of leftist... the older I grow the more I begin to believe that the value of leftism is either as a sustaining force or as an antithesis. I guess perhaps a world devoid of bullies whether they are physical or intellectual in their method...
=========== Message 6 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The Mojito's Seductive Charms (was,
At around 4/10/06 6:58 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> With each list-member contribution the number of
> points being addressed grew larger - like a lab mouse
> fed whey protein shakes.
>
Yes, unfortunately so. For a while on Usenet, I had started a practice of reposting the original post to which I was responding, with each of my responses, and refuse to address anything outside that scope...
> So I decided to drop out, drink a mojito and listen to
> some Satoshi Tomiie instead. Also, my wife demands I
> cook her a delicious meal so time runs short.
What sort of music is Satoshi Tomiie? I may be in Japan later this month and might as well learn a few things to sound less gaijin ;-).
=========== Message 7 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste
At around 4/10/06 7:14 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>> In this instance, as most others, the prefix
>> "radical" is a meaningless distinction: e.g: "the radical left". The
>> real worthwhile practise, as PKF notes, is quite the opposite of a
>> paralysing scepticism: a generous anarchism.
>
> Skepticism (plain vanilla), reasonable skepticism, starts out with, We
> know this and much much more, but do we know or not know the validity of
> Proposition X or Y or Z.
>
> Radical scepticism is any scepticism that does not begin with
> acknowledging how much we know, and know with practical certainty.
>
I think it is irrelevant to go about blanket stating we know this or that with practical certainty. I know with practical certainty that all the oxygen will not rush in a corner of the room thus asphyxiating me to death. So I go about doing other things. The issue here, though, is not one of scepticism (on my part) at all. If people make claims about truth and so on then I want to know how they hold up under their own system of defining and proving such things. If you have to think of it as scepticism, then you can (for your convenience) think of it as a scepticism about claims to truth, not practical certainty.
> In 1850 we _knew_ the validity of Newton's theory of gravity. Any
> thought in 1850 that did not accept the validity, the certain validity,
> of Newton's theory of gravity was a serious barrier to human thought,
> including the thought which eventually 'disproved' Newton's theory of
> gravity.
It would be more illuminating to consider what we though of Newton's system at that time and after that time, but what we though before Newton's theories came about.
> We know that contemporary astronomy gives us immense knowledge of the
> cosmos. We know that astrology gives us no knowledge of anything (except
> the willingness of so many to be gulled by nonsense).
I know nothing of that sort (the latter claim about astrology), since I have not devoted anywhere near the amount of time to astrology as I have to astronomy. I seriously doubt you have either.
> Now you can be skeptical of the completeness of knowledge of the cosmos
> that astronomy offers, but if you challenge the legitimacy of astronomy
> as a mode of knowledge, certain knowledge until (some parts of it) are
> replaced by other, equally certain knowledge, then you are moving
> towards radical skepticism. We can't discover where current astronomy is
> incomplete or wrong except by accepting that curren astronomy gives us
> real (and for practical purposes, certain) knowledge, because it is only
> within that framework that the errors of current astronomy can be
> discovered.
>
> And, incidentally, who is PKF?
PKF (Paul Feyerabend) is one of the guys who demonstrated using historical examples that what is "current practical certainty" is a collection of various bits of information, and at times, has been supplanted by previous practical certainties. In particular, science progresses not because it uses a method or system or language that guarantees monotonicity, but because it is (where successful and truthfully described) the most opportunistic. It just occurred to me that that's perhaps a bit like American capitalism and its ability to assimilate all forms of protest ;-).
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/