>
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
>>
>> ...Its long been recognised that mathematical theory, due to its very
>> nature,tends to become a language operating without reference to reality. I
>> remember the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan went as far as to compare maths to
>> chronic psychotic variants of mental illness, such as paranoid
>> schizophrenia, insofar as both construct their own reality without reference
>> to externalises. They both do this in a very specific way; they begin with
>> some attempt to impose their framework onto some piece of empirical data;
>> then they move onto building a bigger "model", taking progressively more and
>> more "assumption" on board; finally they review the data with reference to
>> the newly constructed "model" and purge any elements which don't fit...
>>
>
> A splendid description of current cosmological/astrophysical dogma, a
> "mathematical" construct piling assumption upon assumption (big bang, dark
> matter, dark energy, gravitational lensing, etc., etc.), and purging any
> elements (quantized redshifts, structural linkages between galaxies, etc.)
> which don't fit.
>
> Shane Mage
>
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Yeah, this method tends to work on any system which allows for even the most remote amount of uncertainty - i.e. almost everything, but particularly the human sciences and the "infant" hard sciences. Current work on genetics often falls prey to this sort of methodology and the consequences range from the bile spewing forth from Dr. Dawkins' overly loose mouth to the Sunday supplement "informing" us that our alcohol/eating/drug addiction is due to mysterious protein structures pulling strings inside of our brains and regulating our behaviour. The whole genetic thing often falls into the exact same holes that phrenology did and even Marx's dialectic wasn't advanced enough to see through that pile of shit (neither was Hegel's; see his famous "Spirit is bone" comment which was a direct reference to phrenology).
If more people would read Adorno we wouldn't have this problem! Negative dialectics and chaos theory - more of this sort thing!