Post modernism and God
Leadryl
the arguments for and against God?
Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
Pastor Habeeb
Are you interested in discussing: What will modernism
be called after post modernism? Post post modernism?
By the way, what was old fashioned stuff called before
it was old fashioned? Pre-old fashioned?
As for scientific knowledge, I hope it changes regularly;
otherwise, people aren't learning anything.
Ted King
wrote:
Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
"science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
you take it to be?
Ted
Sparkup
"Pastor Habeeb" <ops...@rakt.com> wrote in message
news:apr8o0$reh$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>
> > Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
> > the arguments for and against God?
> > Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
> > modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
> > If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
> > modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
> > about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>
> Are you interested in discussing: What will modernism
> be called after post modernism? Post post modernism?
Neo-modernism.
DJ Nozem
>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>the arguments for and against God?
Not really.
>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
Postmodernism isn't the end-all of philosophy. But what is this thing
we call postmodernism? Lyotard once claimed it was the end of the
great stories. But it is not hard to imagine some thinker situated in
the tradition of Heidegger and Derrida taking up a defense of faith in
great stories, if such hasn't been done already.
So what are you talking about? Deconstruction of science as part of
the general system of language? The strong sociological project?
>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
If you say so. Wherein lies the uniqueness of this postmodernist
critique?
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
dj.n...@soneramail.nl
Automort
> I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>modernism is a fad which will die out"
Sorry I can't contribute, then, but those two statements are true. I have
deconstructed Postmodernism and found them so.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap"
Why? Truth hurts?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
R. B. Winn "...was declared insane by Veterans Administration
psychiatrists..." Damn, that explains a lot....
(see: http://selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/winn.html)
Boobbie runs for President! Lists being a prisoner in a jail
and psychiatric ward as political experience. Which almost
makes a weird kinda sense...
Leadryl
By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
perception.
This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
be measured.
Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
point at as proof or disproof of God?
As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
Leadryl
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:17:09 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>>the arguments for and against God?
>
>
> Not really.
>
>
>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>
>
> Postmodernism isn't the end-all of philosophy. But what is this thing
> we call postmodernism? Lyotard once claimed it was the end of the
> great stories. But it is not hard to imagine some thinker situated in
> the tradition of Heidegger and Derrida taking up a defense of faith in
> great stories, if such hasn't been done already.
>
> So what are you talking about? Deconstruction of science as part of
> the general system of language? The strong sociological project?
I appologise, I should not have used such broad terms. As I wrote in
another reply:
By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
perception.
This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
be measured.
Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
point at as proof or disproof of God?
>>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>
> If you say so. Wherein lies the uniqueness of this postmodernist
> critique?
I guess, simply the critique of science as the great judge of
experience. It reduces it to another faith system. How, then, does this
system claim the right to judge other faith systems like religions?
Leadryl
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:17:09 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> in <3DC10325...@southon.com> proclaimed to the world...
>
>
>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap"
>
>
> Why? Truth hurts?
No, mostly because I don't really want to discuss how the subjectivity
of humanity calls the whole "modernism" project, with it's claims to
scientific certainty, into question. I don't want to spend a whole lot
of time justifying this, I want to discuss it's implications. If you
still think that humans are capable of observing reality objectively,
then you really have no interest in this topic.That's why I _said_ I
wasn't interested in this line of debate.
thamus
> Ted King wrote:
>> Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
>> "science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
>> sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
>> you take it to be?
> By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is so
> foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns that we
> cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or perception.
Which, if it is true, cannot be shown to be true, because then it would
be false.
> This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
> reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can be
> measured.
But theories *can* be made. Theories *are* made. These theories make
predictions. Tests can be performed. These tests can be performed by
anyone, anywhere. Does this prove a theory to be absolutely true beyond
doubt? No, but no one claims this to be the case.
> Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is left
> in the cold
It's usually theists who make that argument. The scientific argument is
either "there is no scientific evidence for gods" or "there can be no
scientific evidence for gods since they are beyond the scope of science".
If, however, a particular god-hypothosis makes a particular claim (like
"the Earth is 6000 years old"), that *can* be scientifically dealt with.
> because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
> scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
> that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
But equally cold are simple concepts like "my TV exists".
> What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we point
> at as proof or disproof of God?
If, as you propose, science doesn't work, I can just say that you
don't exist and not worry about that.
> As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
> there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
But I don't not believe in gods: I don't believe in a whole bunch of
specific gods.
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
Evolutionary Link Found Between Humans, Creationists
http://www.thamus.org/News/science/humans_link.html
thamus
Please apply smilies liberally throughout my post when reading.
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
"Touched By An Angel" Spawns Spinoff
http://www.thamus.org/News/entertainment/angel_spinoff.html
Automort
>I don't really want to discuss how the subjectivity
>of humanity calls the whole "modernism" project, with it's claims to
>scientific certainty, into question
Well, golly, what about the subjectivity of postmodernism's claims that
everything is subjective? What is the real underlying factor there? A search
for pixie dust?
After all, I understand that if those evil white male scientists hadn't been
the first to precisely describe gravity, someone else could have described it
differently and we wouldn't fall to our deaths from buildings, cliffs, etc.
Leadryl
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100, Leadryl wrote:
>
>>Ted King wrote:
>>
>>>Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
>>>"science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
>>>sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
>>>you take it to be?
>>
>
>>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is so
>>foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns that we
>>cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or perception.
>
>
> Which, if it is true, cannot be shown to be true, because then it would
> be false.
>
>
>>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
>>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can be
>>measured.
>
>
> But theories *can* be made. Theories *are* made. These theories make
> predictions. Tests can be performed. These tests can be performed by
> anyone, anywhere. Does this prove a theory to be absolutely true beyond
> doubt? No, but no one claims this to be the case.
I'm sorry. I did state that I'm not interested in attempted
"deconstructing" of post modernism, or any other critique that you could
wish to throw up against it. If you think that post modernism is crap,
then don't be part of this discussion.
I am interested in its IMPLICATIONS to the theist / atheist debate, I've
spent enough time hearing from people who think that they can "disprove"
post scientific thinking.
>>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is left
>>in the cold
>
>
> It's usually theists who make that argument. The scientific argument is
> either "there is no scientific evidence for gods" or "there can be no
> scientific evidence for gods since they are beyond the scope of science".
> If, however, a particular god-hypothosis makes a particular claim (like
> "the Earth is 6000 years old"), that *can* be scientifically dealt with.
I'm wondering about whether it *can*. Why do you believe geologists when
they say that the earth cannot be 6000 years old? Did you see it? Do we
believe geologists now for the same reason that
we believed that the world was flat? Simply because it works for us? These
are the questions that I am interested in raising.
>>because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
>>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
>>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
>
>
> But equally cold are simple concepts like "my TV exists".
Yes.
>>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we point
>>at as proof or disproof of God?
>
>
> If, as you propose, science doesn't work, I can just say that you
> don't exist and not worry about that.
I never said it doesn't work. Post modern philosophy never said that it
doesn't work. I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word
"prove" from scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
>>As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
>>there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
>
>
> But I don't not believe in gods: I don't believe in a whole bunch of
> specific gods.
Why?
Leadryl
Equally, please take me as being as friendly as I can :-)
Leadryl
OK, I'll take this on.
(Trying not to sound patronising) Please stop me if I use terms or
concepts which you are unfamiliar with.
As far as I have read, the critique from the majority of post modern
scholars is not about the existence of objective reality, but about our
ability to percieve it objectively. The subjectivity of our perceptions
results from how our brains seem to work, we store information gathered
in paradigmic grids - ways of organising information and associating it
with other bits of information. Knowledge is not a independant entity
living in our heads, it is the way that we describe our experiences and
store them in memory. This is a fairly subjective process.
Equally, the existence of people who see reality very differently to
ourselves indicates that we may not see reality pervectly. Are they
insane or are we? How much of the differences between how they describe
reality to us and how we percieve it is about language? How much is it
about us actually percieving reality differently?
The Matrix is a great example. It is hypothetically possible - albeit
very unlikely - that everything we experience is a great illusion. More
possibly, some of the things that we percieve are not absolutely,
objectively, as they are in reality. Finally, humans very often fail to
notice things (the color of my girlfriend's shoes being a common example).
This brings into question the validity of scientific method, which is,
as I understand:
Observe
Make a theory
Design a test
Observe results
Ammend theory
Notice the two "observe"s. Is what we are observing what is actually
there? How do we tell? If we talk to someone else about this, the
subjectivity of language hinders this, so we are never fully capable of
determining completely that we are not hallucinating. In the end, we
accept that we are not. This is a belief - we have no proof for it. We
cannot prove that our senses are accurate, because the only method of
proving this relies on our senses.
Pragmatism says that we should evaluate beliefs, not on some
philosophical grounds, but on what affect believing will have on our
lives. I don't know if we SHOULD do this or not, but I believe that this
is how we DO evaluate beliefs. We accept science as valid because it
works for us. Some people accept various religions because they work for
them.Others accept atheism because it works for them. Many people accept
many beliefs because they believe that they work together - ie, science
and religion.
What, apart from personal experiences, is there to judge between these
beliefs?
raven1
>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>the arguments for and against God?
No.
>
>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
I'll hold my tongue for the moment, although I agree with both
potential criticisms...
>
>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>modernism,
I have.
> then you really should, since it has very real questions
>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
Suuure it does.
Such as?
raven1
>Ted King wrote:
>> In article <3DC10325...@southon.com>, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>>>the arguments for and against God?
>>>
>>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>>>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>>>
>>>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>>>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>>>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
>> "science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
>> sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
>> you take it to be?
>>
>> Ted
>
>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>perception.
Which proposal is self-refuting, one might observe.
David
"Leadryl" <fl...@southon.com> wrote in message
news:3DC217BF...@southon.com...
> thamus wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100, Leadryl wrote:
> >
> >>Ted King wrote:
> >>
> >>>Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
> >>>"science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
> >>>sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
> >>>you take it to be?
> >>
> >
> >>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
so
> >>foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns that
we
> >>cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
perception.
> >
> >
> > Which, if it is true, cannot be shown to be true, because then it would
> > be false.
> >
And if true, makes it meaningless to do *anything*. After all, how do we
*really* know we're hungry? So why eat? How do we *really* know we need
oxygen? Why breathe? How do we know anyone else *really* exists? We don't,
so we should be solipsists. But, let's ignore that for now.
> >
> >>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
> >>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
be
> >>measured.
> >
> >
> > But theories *can* be made. Theories *are* made. These theories make
> > predictions. Tests can be performed. These tests can be performed by
> > anyone, anywhere. Does this prove a theory to be absolutely true beyond
> > doubt? No, but no one claims this to be the case.
>
> I'm sorry. I did state that I'm not interested in attempted
> "deconstructing" of post modernism, or any other critique that you could
> wish to throw up against it. If you think that post modernism is crap,
> then don't be part of this discussion.
*I* think it's crap, but I'm willing to discuss without taking my opinion
that it's crap for granted. I'll discuss it as if it has merit. Fair enough?
>
> I am interested in its IMPLICATIONS to the theist / atheist debate, I've
> spent enough time hearing from people who think that they can "disprove"
> post scientific thinking.
>
I don't really see any. I'll explain later in this post, because I'm
replying from the bottom up :-)
> >>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
left
> >>in the cold
> >
> >
> > It's usually theists who make that argument. The scientific argument is
> > either "there is no scientific evidence for gods" or "there can be no
> > scientific evidence for gods since they are beyond the scope of
science".
> > If, however, a particular god-hypothosis makes a particular claim (like
> > "the Earth is 6000 years old"), that *can* be scientifically dealt with.
>
> I'm wondering about whether it *can*. Why do you believe geologists when
> they say that the earth cannot be 6000 years old? Did you see it? Do we
> believe geologists now for the same reason that
> we believed that the world was flat? Simply because it works for us? These
> are the questions that I am interested in raising.
>
I don't think so. Although I could be wrong, I have seen discussions of
much of the evidence, and I have talked with people who have duplicated some
of the experiments, and the conclusions they have come to certainly seem, to
me, to make sense, and I, try as I might, cannot find an argument against
their conclusions that isn't circular in some way (assuming the conclusion
as a premise). And they're all religious in nature.
Also, these people who wrote the religious texts didn't know about
radioactivity, microbes, atoms, fusion, electricity, most of the elements,
gunpowder, magnetism, or many other things, besides. Why should I take the
word of people who knew so little about the world, over people who have
nearly infinitely more knowledge?
> >>because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
> >>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
> >>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
> >
> >
> > But equally cold are simple concepts like "my TV exists".
>
> Yes.
>
> >>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
point
> >>at as proof or disproof of God?
> >
> >
> > If, as you propose, science doesn't work, I can just say that you
> > don't exist and not worry about that.
>
> I never said it doesn't work. Post modern philosophy never said that it
> doesn't work. I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word
> "prove" from scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
That's already part of the scientific stance: nothing can be proven
absolutely; future evidence maybe disprove previous thinking. However, after
a certain amount of evidence in a certain direction, we tend to sort of take
it for granted. You know, once one has a few million pieces of evidence on a
subject (exaggeration deliberate, but you get my drift, I'm sure), and they
all point to the same conclusions, one tends to accept said conclusions (or
at least some thereof) as fact. It would be unreasonable not to...
especially when the conclusions imply predictions which are later found to
be true, according to new evidence.
--
Fuck you, Kenny!
----------------------------
Dave
a.a. #2049 apatriot #17 || AIM screen name: Non
Homogenized
EAC Director of R.A.M.(classified) || an Official EAC Corruptor of
Innocents
Satan, according to Bluskie|| UDP for WebTV!
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to
Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own
devising, and a serious attitude problem." -Rick Moen
Meteorite Debris
Leadryl<fl...@southon.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
> so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
> that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
> perception.
Except that subjectivity can be tested for by external testing
> This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
> reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
> be measured.
If they can be falsified, verified and tested then theories arising
can be said to be scientific. This is very different to something
imagined and not tested or testable but simply believed like the idea
of a god.
> Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
> left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
> scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
> that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
God cannot be scientifically proven because it is an unscientific
idea. There is no single observation that will falsify a god. But the
laws of gravity on the other hand can be. A failure for gravity to
effect a mass in a way predicted would do it. Failure of a proposed
god to cure a patient of cancer however does not. The failure of any
test for a god can always be dismissed as "God works in mysterious
ways".
There is a difference between subjective reality and objective
reality and the difference is called scientific method. There is a
difference between a fairy in your head which I can not test and the
laws of gravity which I can.
> What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
> point at as proof or disproof of God?
Not of a god but we can for gravity.
>
> As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
> there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
No quiet. An atheist lacks belief in god(s). This does not mean a
belief that god(s) do not exist. A common misconception.
--
apatriot #1, atheist #1417, rot-13 on email reply
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS (revoked) - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
dummie
I feel religion will become a pseudo solipsism. where god becomes
something we can't see or understand with science, and the religious
feelings we have are put their by god, not because its a reasonable
characteristic beneficial for our survival emplaced by natural
selection. our lack of interpretative ability will make the bible a
beautiful mystery rather than a useful tool and because of that, we're
fucked or something.
But no kidding when i say some people will think that the end is near,
because, well just b/c.
johac
Perhaps you should read what Richard Dawkins wrote about the subject:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1998-07-09postmode
rnism_disrobed.htm
or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O26921E42
It's long, otherwise I would have posted it.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910).
socode
"Leadryl" <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry. I did state that I'm not interested in attempted
> "deconstructing" of post modernism, or any other critique that you could
> wish to throw up against it. If you think that post modernism is crap,
> then don't be part of this discussion.
I don't see any reason why those who are interested in deconstructing
post-modernism be disallowed from doing so. Nothing compels you to
answer their points.
Any thread can spark off an interesting discussion in which the originator
is not involved.
More specifically, threads with a sacred assumption would probably be
more appropriately placed in newsgroups where said assumption is part of
the charter.
socode
Leadryl
Not self-refuting, but self-subjected. The proposition is, in itself, is
able to be questioned. Since I am not denying objective reality, then
the sentance is not self-refuting. It simply suggests that all claims to
truth (including itself) are a victim of human subjectivity.
Leadryl
> "Leadryl" <fl...@southon.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC217BF...@southon.com...
>
>>thamus wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100, Leadryl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ted King wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Could you define the "God" you are talking about, and what you mean by
>>>>>"science" and "knowledge". And since post modernism is not exactly a
>>>>>sharply delineated system of thought, could you give an account of what
>>>>>you take it to be?
>>>>
>>>>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>>>
> so
>
>>>>foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns that
>>>
> we
>
>>>>cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>>>
> perception.
>
>>>
>>>Which, if it is true, cannot be shown to be true, because then it would
>>>be false.
>>>
>>
>
> And if true, makes it meaningless to do *anything*. After all, how do we
> *really* know we're hungry? So why eat? How do we *really* know we need
> oxygen? Why breathe? How do we know anyone else *really* exists? We don't,
> so we should be solipsists. But, let's ignore that for now.
Not so. Richard Rorty's pragmatic approach suggests that we believe
things because they work for us, not because we can philosophically
"prove" them. We accept science as a method because it has worked for us
so far. This means that our meaning is extracted from our chosen
paradigm. We breathe because we choose to believe that life is better
than death - we have no proof, we just simply choose to believe it.
Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm revolutions suggests that we cannot
claim that one paradigm is superior over another while they are both in
popular circulation. The superiority of a paradigm is shown when the
majority of people accept and follow it.
Incidentally, this means that scientific method cannot claim superiority
over, for instance, theism, because there are about 3 billion people who
subscribe to a theistic religion (to return to the original topic of the
discussion).
If a God exists (and I'm not saying either way), it makes sence that,
though
the scientists have understood radiation better, they understand the
world less
because they fail to understand it's creator. The claim that knowing
more about electrons and less about God is knowing more about the world
is pre-assuming that scietific method is superior to theism - which is
the topic in debate.
>>>>because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
>>>>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
>>>>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
>>>
>>>
>>>But equally cold are simple concepts like "my TV exists".
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
>>>
> point
>
>>>>at as proof or disproof of God?
>>>
>>>
>>>If, as you propose, science doesn't work, I can just say that you
>>>don't exist and not worry about that.
>>
>>I never said it doesn't work. Post modern philosophy never said that it
>>doesn't work. I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word
>>"prove" from scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
>
>
> That's already part of the scientific stance: nothing can be proven
> absolutely; future evidence maybe disprove previous thinking. However, after
> a certain amount of evidence in a certain direction, we tend to sort of take
> it for granted. You know, once one has a few million pieces of evidence on a
> subject (exaggeration deliberate, but you get my drift, I'm sure), and they
> all point to the same conclusions, one tends to accept said conclusions (or
> at least some thereof) as fact. It would be unreasonable not to...
> especially when the conclusions imply predictions which are later found to
> be true, according to new evidence.
You are still focusing on the concept of "evidence", when you have not
supported your belief that anything you percieve, or are able to
communicate, can be "evidence".
When different people have different "Evidence", on what grounds do we
discern which is better? It can't be scientific method, because it is
victim to human subjectivity. What, other than Rorty's pratgmatism, can
we use?
Leadryl
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100 the ET form known as
> Leadryl<fl...@southon.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
> of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
>
>
>>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>>perception.
>
>
> Except that subjectivity can be tested for by external testing
>
How? Anything communicated to others for external testing, and anything
communicated back to us from such testing (not to mention the
perceptions of the external human tester) are victims of human
subjectivity. You cannot escape it.
>
>>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
>>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
>>be measured.
>
>
> If they can be falsified, verified and tested then theories arising
> can be said to be scientific. This is very different to something
> imagined and not tested or testable but simply believed like the idea
> of a god.
But why is being "scientific" better than not being "scientific"? On
what basis do you make this balue judgement?
>>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
>>left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
>>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
>>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
>
>
> God cannot be scientifically proven because it is an unscientific
> idea. There is no single observation that will falsify a god. But the
> laws of gravity on the other hand can be. A failure for gravity to
> effect a mass in a way predicted would do it. Failure of a proposed
> god to cure a patient of cancer however does not. The failure of any
> test for a god can always be dismissed as "God works in mysterious
> ways".
>
> There is a difference between subjective reality and objective
> reality and the difference is called scientific method. There is a
> difference between a fairy in your head which I can not test and the
> laws of gravity which I can.
>
>
>>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
>>point at as proof or disproof of God?
>
>
> Not of a god but we can for gravity.
Missing the point of my argument. No scientific method is immune to
human subjectivity. There is no objective way of measuring the exact
effect of gravity. The only reason we believe it works in China is
because people tell us that it does, or that it did last time we were in
a place that we thought was China.
How do you expect to escape human subjectivity? By comparing to another
subjective human?
>>As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
>>there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
>
>
> No quiet. An atheist lacks belief in god(s). This does not mean a
> belief that god(s) do not exist. A common misconception.
An agnostic lacks belief: a - none, gnosis - knowledge
An atheist believes there is no God: a - none, theos - God
Basic greek.
Leadryl
I feel science has already become a pseudo solipsism. where scientific
method is the ruler of everything - ignoring the fact that it is a
victim of human subjectivity - and all experiences we have are
explainable by it, not because it's reasonable or provable, but because
it's convenient. Our lack of insight makes science a new God rather than
a useful tool, and because of that, humanity really is f*cked.
But no kidding when I say some people will think that there is no God,
because, well, just b/c.
Leadryl
> In article <3DC10325...@southon.com>, fl...@southon.com wrote:
>
>
>>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>>the arguments for and against God?
>>
>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>>
>>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of
>>post
>>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps you should read what Richard Dawkins wrote about the subject:
>
> http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1998-07-09postmode
> rnism_disrobed.htm
>
> or:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O26921E42
>
> It's long, otherwise I would have posted it.
I read it. It grabbed single paragraphs of various extremist post-modern
philosophers out of context, and ridiculed them for not making sense. I
could grab single paragraphs from any university text book and treat
them the same way. No science text book will make sense if I only take
out one paragraph and leave non-scientific people to look at the jargon
(defined earlier in the book) with confusion.
I agree that the majority of what was written by the deconstructionalist
authors that were being reviewed is utter rubbish. But the method of
review was incredibally irresponsable, and could have been used on any
topic to ridicule high-quality authors.
Extreme relativist deconstrutionalists are NOT the only example of post
modern thought. People read Derrida and think that he's the only
philosopher to consider what happens when the modern naive positivism
collapses under the weight of human subjectivity. They don't like him,
so they claim "post modernism is crap".
Read Richard Rorty. Tell me he doesn't make sense. Read Middleton and
Walsh, or Phillip Kenneson. Read anything other than Derrida and
Focault. They are EXTREMISTS, not by any means the only voice in post
modern thought, any more than Descart was the only voice in modern thought.
Don't be simplistic and reductionist, like most modern scientific
scholars have, and reject anything that challenges your world view out
of hand. Read, think, analyse for yourself. The post modern challenge
has some good points, and no complaint about poor writing style, or
alleged "self defeating sentences" will make the questions go away.
Leadryl
Fair point.
I'm sorry.
Deconstruct away.
JPG
>Meteorite Debris wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100 the ET form known as
>> Leadryl<fl...@southon.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
>
>How? Anything communicated to others for external testing, and anything
>communicated back to us from such testing (not to mention the
>perceptions of the external human tester) are victims of human
>subjectivity. You cannot escape it.
Define subjectivity. We all have a view of reality defined by our own
perceptions and thought processes - our own worldview, if you will.
The major "components" of individual worldviews can be shared amongst
a population and I guess that might be called a paradigm.
Paradigm (from dictionary.com):
"A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that
constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares
them, especially in an intellectual discipline. "
The scientific paradigm ensures checks and balances, peer-review,
skepticism. This ensures a view of reality which is as objective as
you're going to get. This view of reality has to be "earned" on
merit.
My, admittedly subjective, view is that theism does not fit well into
the meritocratic paradigm.
JPG
>
>
_____________________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because
you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
- Isaac Asimov
Meteorite Debris
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> Meteorite Debris wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100 the ET form known as
> > Leadryl<fl...@southon.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
> > of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> How? Anything communicated to others for external testing, and anything
> communicated back to us from such testing (not to mention the
> perceptions of the external human tester) are victims of human
> subjectivity. You cannot escape it.
So how might this mean that the laws of gravity are not real?
> >
> >>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
> >>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
> >>be measured.
> >
> >
> > If they can be falsified, verified and tested then theories arising
> > can be said to be scientific. This is very different to something
> > imagined and not tested or testable but simply believed like the idea
> > of a god.
>
> But why is being "scientific" better than not being "scientific"? On
> what basis do you make this balue judgement?
It's not a value judgement but a scientific judgement. What is
subjective can be eliminated by scientific method. What is left is
objective. Take 2 ideas.
1. There is a family of fairies down the back of my yard.
2. Exposure to cow pox gives immunity to small pox.
With 1 you may object that you can not see them. But that could be
because you need faith. If the fairies still can not be seen you can
then blame the observer who can not see the fairies instead of
reexamining the idea.
With 2 you can eliminate the possibility that the idea is wrong. If
cow pox does not confer immunity to small pox you know that the idea
was wrong. And this is still so no matter what precept ions or
prejudices are held but the testing party. Small pox does not behave
differently simply because the observer thinks differently. Likewise
to predict the path and position of Jupiter does not depend on your
perception and you can not change the position of Jupiter no matter
what your mood is.
> >>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
> >>left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
> >>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
> >>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
> >
> >
> > God cannot be scientifically proven because it is an unscientific
> > idea. There is no single observation that will falsify a god. But the
> > laws of gravity on the other hand can be. A failure for gravity to
> > effect a mass in a way predicted would do it. Failure of a proposed
> > god to cure a patient of cancer however does not. The failure of any
> > test for a god can always be dismissed as "God works in mysterious
> > ways".
> >
> > There is a difference between subjective reality and objective
> > reality and the difference is called scientific method. There is a
> > difference between a fairy in your head which I can not test and the
> > laws of gravity which I can.
> >
> >
> >>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
> >>point at as proof or disproof of God?
> >
> >
> > Not of a god but we can for gravity.
>
> Missing the point of my argument. No scientific method is immune to
> human subjectivity. There is no objective way of measuring the exact
> effect of gravity. The only reason we believe it works in China is
> because people tell us that it does, or that it did last time we were in
> a place that we thought was China.
You're missing the point. It can be falsified. Predictions can be made
and verified. It is that which makes it a different kind of idea to
that of a god. You seem to think that because some things are inexact
like superstitious beliefs then everything must be.
If there is no exact way to measure the effect of gravity then please
tell me how come the motions of the planets have been predicted for
centuries without fail. What we do know is that close to the speed of
c Einsteinain nuancing is needed even though there existed an
expectation (you might call it a prejudice) that such anomalies would
not be found. Remember you are talking Newton - one of the giants. So
it looks as though prejudice, social conditioning and subjective
perceptions do not colour what can be objectively known.
> How do you expect to escape human subjectivity? By comparing to another
> subjective human?
No. By testing against external reality.
>
> >>As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
> >>there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
> >
> >
> > No quiet. An atheist lacks belief in god(s). This does not mean a
> > belief that god(s) do not exist. A common misconception.
>
> An agnostic lacks belief: a - none, gnosis - knowledge
> An atheist believes there is no God: a - none, theos - God
> Basic greek.
This is not the definition of atheism. I am an atheist so I should
know. Theos means god but theism does not. Theism mean a belief in
god(s). So a-theism as in amoral using the prefix of 'a' for no means
no belief in god(s). The word is not im-thesim as in immoral.
As for agnostic you are confused. An agnosticism means a lack of
knowledge of god(s) - not belief. But belief may or may not be held
regardless of knowledge. Thus you can be an agnostic theist or an
agnostic atheist. Theism and gnosis are describing different
qualities. Agnosticism is NOT a half way position between theism and
atheism and more than an orange is a halfway position between an apple
and no apple.
I suggest you read George H Smith's book on atheism for a
clarification of this.
Meteorite Debris
johac<jha...@remove.ixpres.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
> In article <3DC10325...@southon.com>, fl...@southon.com wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
> > the arguments for and against God?
> >
> > Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
> > modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
> >
> > If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of
> > post
> > modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
> > about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
> >
>
> Perhaps you should read what Richard Dawkins wrote about the subject:
>
> http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1998-07-09postmode
> rnism_disrobed.htm
I like one of the links I followed from that page.
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
It randomly generates a postmodern essay.
Some I generated were
Discourses of Futility: The subdeconstructive paradigm of expression
and precapitalist objectivism
Reassessing Socialist realism: Social realism in the works of
Burroughs
Substructural Desituationisms: Postcapitalist semanticist theory and
Sontagist camp
Deconstructing Derrida: Neocultural materialism and expressionism
JPG
>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>the arguments for and against God?
>
>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>
>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>
The characteristic theme of Pickett's critique of postcapitalist
deconstructivism is the common ground between society and class. The
subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist libertarianism that
includes truth as a whole. It could be said that if dialectic
neosemantic theory holds, we have to choose between textual narrative
and textual theory.
In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of
subconceptualist reality. The subject is interpolated into a
subcapitalist libertarianism that includes consciousness as a paradox.
But the primary theme of the works of Fellini is a dialectic reality.
"Truth is part of the fatal flaw of sexuality," says Derrida; however,
according to Buxton , it is not so much truth that is part of the
fatal flaw of sexuality, but rather the failure of truth. In
Satyricon, Fellini examines Baudrillardist simulacra; in Amarcord,
although, he reiterates Lyotardist narrative. However, any number of
discourses concerning textual narrative exist.
Derrida's essay on subcapitalist libertarianism states that society
has intrinsic meaning. Thus, la Fournier implies that the works of
Fellini are an example of self-sufficient feminism.
Textual narrative suggests that art serves to oppress minorities, but
only if Lacan's critique of Baudrillardist simulacra is valid; if that
is not the case, government is dead. In a sense, if subcapitalist
libertarianism holds, we have to choose between textual narrative and
the submodernist paradigm of reality. Marx uses the term 'Batailleist
`powerful communication'' to denote the role of the writer as poet.
Therefore, Lyotard promotes the use of textual narrative to analyse
sexual identity.
The main theme of Hanfkopf's model of cultural rationalism is not
theory per se, but posttheory. However, Debord uses the term
'Baudrillardist simulacra' to denote a mythopoetical whole.
Russell Turpin
> By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our
> human subjectivity is so foundationally intertwined
> with our language and thought-patterns that we
> cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either
> in text or perception.
I think Plato was the one who drove the nail into the
notion that we directly perceive reality. Or maybe
someone before him. Most scientists who think about
these philosophical issues make more modest claims.
Science constructs empirical models that can be
experientially tested and refined. These are models of
reality only in a pragmatic sense; they make no claim
about what the Ultimate Reality behind the phenomena
modeled. That's true even of cosmology and particle
physics. These theories are neutral on whether they
describe the most basic reality, or merely the behavior
of our universe as it is simulated/executed by gods,
Matrix machine, etc.
It seems to me the postmodernist critique you describe
can be read in one of two ways. (1) It is a shallow
criticism that repeats the philosophical critique that
we cannot know the Really Real. Yeah, that's true. At
this point in our history, it's also trite. You're
still going to go to the doctor when you break your
leg, because he knows how to mend broken bones, whether
or not ultimate reality is just physics, or there is
something else behind it. (2) Alternatively, the
postmodernist criticism is deeper, which if taken
seriously implies that ALL language and knowledge is
nonsense, and there's really no point in anyone doing
anything except navel gazing. In neither case does
the criticism have anything to say about science or
the gods, specifically. It's addressing human
langage and knowledge about anything and everything.
Postmodernists seems to vacillate in exactly what
their criticism means, prefering something "shallow"
when defending their criticism, and something "deep"
when applying it.
> I'm sorry. I did state that I'm not interested in
> attempted "deconstructing" of post modernism, or
> any other critique that you could wish to throw up
> against it.
Yeah. Well. If the moon is made of green cheese, it
could feed a lot of rats. Of course, some engineering
student might start questioning whether it is stable,
given the structural properties of green cheese. And
what happens to cheese under the kinds of pressure
that are found inside the moon? Or when exposed to
vaccuum and the sun's unimpeded UV? Should we assume
the cheese has already imploded on itself, and the
interior has undergone whatever chemical
transformations will occur? Or that -- poof! -- the
moon suddenly became green cheese?
Trying to make sensible implications from nonsense
is harder than first appears. If you want sensible
implications, you first have to make sense of the
assumptions. That may be asking a lot, in this case.
Beowulf
>Meteorite Debris wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100 the ET form known as
>> Leadryl<fl...@southon.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
>> of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
>>
>>
>>>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>>>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>>>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>>>perception.
>>
>>
>> Except that subjectivity can be tested for by external testing
>>
>
>How? Anything communicated to others for external testing, and anything
>communicated back to us from such testing (not to mention the
>perceptions of the external human tester) are victims of human
>subjectivity. You cannot escape it.
Is this really the heart of postmodernism, the dilemma of subjective
transmission? I thought it was more about architects designing
buildings that juxtapose different styles or authors who insert
themselves into their books as characters.
Regardless, why would we need to escape subjective transmission of
information (if we could). Inter-subjective reliability is the a good
corollary to objective reality. The fact that different people
perform the same experiments and come to the same reproducible
conclusions regardless of their frame of reference, religious beliefs,
or country of origin is a help not a hindrance to the bolstering of
the notion of objective reality.
--
"You know I don't think they have enough gods on sticks."
- Cameron Diaz in "There's Something About The Virgin Mary"
Beowulf
ejaculated:
>DJ Nozem wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:17:09 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>>>the arguments for and against God?
>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>
>>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>>>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>>
>>
>> Postmodernism isn't the end-all of philosophy. But what is this thing
>> we call postmodernism? Lyotard once claimed it was the end of the
>> great stories. But it is not hard to imagine some thinker situated in
>> the tradition of Heidegger and Derrida taking up a defense of faith in
>> great stories, if such hasn't been done already.
>>
>> So what are you talking about? Deconstruction of science as part of
>> the general system of language? The strong sociological project?
>
>I appologise, I should not have used such broad terms. As I wrote in
>another reply:
>
>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>perception.
Could you recommend some books on post-modernism? I haven't read
anything on it since I was in college (the early 90s). I read some
Jencks and Foucault and a couple novels by John Fowles. What should I
read to update myself?
thamus
> thamus wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:53:47 +1100, Leadryl wrote:
>>
>>>Ted King wrote:
>> Which, if it is true, cannot be shown to be true, because then it would
>> be false.
>>
>>>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
>>>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
>>>be measured.
>>
>> But theories *can* be made. Theories *are* made. These theories make
>> predictions. Tests can be performed. These tests can be performed by
>> anyone, anywhere. Does this prove a theory to be absolutely true beyond
>> doubt? No, but no one claims this to be the case.
>
> I'm sorry. I did state that I'm not interested in attempted
> "deconstructing" of post modernism, or any other critique that you could
> wish to throw up against it. If you think that post modernism is crap,
> then don't be part of this discussion.
>
> I am interested in its IMPLICATIONS to the theist / atheist debate,
I was stating the implications: if post modernism (above and beyond
a certain pragmatic level) is true (a contradiction I think), then
there is no point in discussing the god/no-god debate (or anything
else for that matter).
> I've
> spent enough time hearing from people who think that they can "disprove"
> post scientific thinking.
Well, it can't be proved or disproved.
>>>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
>>>left in the cold
>>
>> It's usually theists who make that argument. The scientific argument is
>> either "there is no scientific evidence for gods" or "there can be no
>> scientific evidence for gods since they are beyond the scope of
>> science". If, however, a particular god-hypothosis makes a particular
>> claim (like "the Earth is 6000 years old"), that *can* be scientifically
>> dealt with.
>
> I'm wondering about whether it *can*. Why do you believe geologists when
> they say that the earth cannot be 6000 years old? Did you see it? Do we
> believe geologists now for the same reason that we believed that the world
> was flat? Simply because it works for us? These are the questions that I
> am interested in raising.
Because the theory that the earth is not 6000 years old answers more
questions and fits the evidence better that the alternate. It's
pragmatism, plain and simple.
>>>because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be scientifically
>>>proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts that are
>>>contrary to God is left in the cold.
>>
>> But equally cold are simple concepts like "my TV exists".
>
> Yes.
>
>>>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
>>>point at as proof or disproof of God?
>>
>> If, as you propose, science doesn't work, I can just say that you don't
>> exist and not worry about that.
>
> I never said it doesn't work. Post modern philosophy never said that it
> doesn't work.
This is where I meant a smilie :) But really, if I can't trust my
senses and all the available evidence that my TV does exists, science
ceases to exist.
> I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word "prove"
> from scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
I think that's part of science already. Any scientist worth his salt
should be willing to drop any theory that no longer fits the data, or
if there's a better one around. Scientists, when questioned deeply,
will say that "proof" isn't part of what they do.
>>>As for "which God" - any God. The atheist view is that NO God exists, so
>>>there is no need to define a certain God for this discussion.
>>
>> But I don't not believe in gods: I don't believe in a whole bunch of
>> specific gods.
>
> Why?
Because there is no evidence for any specific god that has been presented
to me, and plenty of evidence against some of them. I don't claim to have
disproven "gods", and most people here, I think, would say much the same.
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
New Group Hopes To Break Monopoly On Gravity Theory
http://www.thamus.org/News/science/IG_theory.html
David
Ah, but can we *prove* that anyone is *actually* alive, at that point? No.
So we *assume* life?
Anyhow, in that case, theism is a great thing to believe in... If one
prefers death, destruction, violence, rape, and all the other things which
are the antithesis of civilization. Otherwise, there's hardly a place for it
at all.
To someone who believes post-modernism (which I still say is the
coward's solipsism), I cannot *prove*, of course, that theism causes those
things, but to anyone who can observe cause-and-effect, it should be pretty
damn obvious.
>
> Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm revolutions suggests that we cannot
> claim that one paradigm is superior over another while they are both in
> popular circulation. The superiority of a paradigm is shown when the
> majority of people accept and follow it.
>
> Incidentally, this means that scientific method cannot claim superiority
> over, for instance, theism, because there are about 3 billion people who
> subscribe to a theistic religion (to return to the original topic of the
> discussion).
>
So truth is determined by majority vote? That's not simply believing a
philosophy; that's the intellectual equivalent of voluntarily gouging out
the reasoning centers of the brain with a spork.
No offense, but I think this will be my last post in this thread,
although I'll continue reading. I simply cannot see any way to reasonably
"discuss" anything pertaining to such an outright idiotic philosophy, which
obviously was created simply to excuse any behaviour or beliefs, no matter
how they fly in the face of reality.
By the logic of post-modernism, we cannot dismiss the idea that Storks bring
babies, since many children believe it.
Simply put, how can one assume that people living 3000+ years ago in mud
huts, quaking in their own waste whenever thunder crashed, knew more about
*anything* than we know today. That's a completely unwarranted assumption.
The notion that I should accept that as even a possibility is somewhat more
preposterous than you accepting as fact my claim that there's a 200 foot
long cockroach standing right behind you, about to eat you. After all,
although both ideas were pulled completely out of people's assholes, my idea
at least has the merit that we know there *are* such things as cockroaches,
and they do eat things. (yes, according to post-modernism, we still
effectively know cockroaches exist; no one disagrees, do they?)
look up evidence.
Evidence: N.;
"An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark,
sign, token, trace."
"Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any
conclusion."
"Information, whether in the form of personal testimony, the language of
documents, or the production of material objects, that is given in a legal
investigation, to establish the fact or point in question."
Evidence isn't "something proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, with no
refutations, period". Evidence is something which *suggests* something else.
Even if post-modernism was correct, evidence would still exist, because the
senses would still *suggest* the existence/truth of some things. And there
would still be objective evidence: if 500 people perform effectively
identical experiments, and, to them and any observers, appear to get the
same result, then we can pretty much call that objective, since it doesn't
matter who you are, you still see the same result.
> When different people have different "Evidence", on what grounds do we
> discern which is better? It can't be scientific method, because it is
> victim to human subjectivity. What, other than Rorty's pratgmatism, can
> we use?
Personally, I prefer empiricism or objectivity ( Something which anyone
can see, without requiring a belief beforehand [because that would be
circular logic; assuming the conclusion] )
Even assuming that all humans perceive things differently, since I don't
know of any two humans who believe in the same god/s, those are obviously
subjective. However, when dozens or hundreds of people perform (seemingly)
identical experiments, and they, and any observers, see the *same* results
that others do, that lends credos to it being more than a subjective
phenomenon.
Again, unless given a very good reason, I won't be replying again. I
respect your ability to discuss, but I simply cannot continue to bring
myself to discuss such an idiotic idea as though it were fact. To me, that
someone would come up with such crap indicates that we haven't had much in
the way of philosophers since Locke.
DJ Nozem
>DJ Nozem wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:17:09 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>>>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
>>>the arguments for and against God?
>> Not really.
>>>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
>>>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
>> Postmodernism isn't the end-all of philosophy. But what is this thing
>> we call postmodernism? Lyotard once claimed it was the end of the
>> great stories. But it is not hard to imagine some thinker situated in
>> the tradition of Heidegger and Derrida taking up a defense of faith in
>> great stories, if such hasn't been done already.
>> So what are you talking about? Deconstruction of science as part of
>> the general system of language? The strong sociological project?
>I appologise, I should not have used such broad terms. As I wrote in
>another reply:
>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>perception.
OK. I don't entirely agree with this proposal, but I won't argue.
>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
>be measured.
>Now the classic argument of "God cannot be scientifically proven" is
>left in the cold because, considering human subjectivity, NOTHING can be
>scientifically proven. Equally, the claim that science proves concepts
>that are contrary to God is left in the cold.
Well, you seem to have sorted out the question for yourself :-)
One thing, though: The statement 'God cannot be scientifically proven'
is perhaps maintained by some as a reason for personal rejection of
the concept, but isn't exactly an argument against the existence of
God. The statement to attack would be the claim that it is irrational
to believe in God without clear evidence for and/or falsifiability of
the concept.
>What, then, aside from personal, un-transferrable experience, can we
>point at as proof or disproof of God?
I know you don't want to go into discussions about these things, but
'un-transferrable experience'? My friend, we would not be able to
talk.
Anyway, going from your definition I don't think you can prove much
from a postmodernist pov, aber wir können immer zeigen, if at least we
refrain from confounding the uniqueness of our experiences with their
transferability.
>>>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>>>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>>>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
>> If you say so. Wherein lies the uniqueness of this postmodernist
>> critique?
>I guess, simply the critique of science as the great judge of
>experience. It reduces it to another faith system. How, then, does this
>system claim the right to judge other faith systems like religions?
Very well. First note that you are presenting science as a 'faith
system'. I would say this implies that it is a discourse shared and
engaged in by various people, thus requiring something like
intersubjectivity or superimposition of a conceptual framework and
experience-swapping :-)
Now, arguments of this kin have been employed rather extensively on
this newsgroup by one Keith Johnson, a quaker. I don't know if he
considers himself to be a postmodernist, though. I have personally
touched upon the problems with judging between different outlooks in
several discussions, though more often on the opposite side.
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
dj.n...@soneramail.nl
Igtheist
> Don't be simplistic and reductionist, like most modern scientific
> scholars have, and reject anything that challenges your world view out
> of hand.
Science is not simplistic! What are you a fool? You use the term
reductionism like it is a slur. Reductionism is a very useful tool.
> Read, think, analyse for yourself. The post modern challenge
> has some good points, and no complaint about poor writing style, or
> alleged "self defeating sentences" will make the questions go away.
What good points has post modernism made that wasn't obvious in the
first place. What points made that science does not have
methodologies for dealing with?
Sorry but post-modernism is crap. Every post-modernist I have ever
had a dialog with has proven this to me. They just don't understand
science or what it is about.
dummie
> dummie wrote:
> > Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote in message news:<3DC10325...@southon.com>...
> >
> >>Has anyone considered how the post modern critique of science affects
> >>the arguments for and against God?
> >>
> >>Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
> >>modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
> >>
> >>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
> >>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
> >>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
> >
> >
> > I feel religion will become a pseudo solipsism. where god becomes
> > something we can't see or understand with science, and the religious
> > feelings we have are put their by god, not because its a reasonable
> > characteristic beneficial for our survival emplaced by natural
> > selection. our lack of interpretative ability will make the bible a
> > beautiful mystery rather than a useful tool and because of that, we're
> > fucked or something.
> >
> > But no kidding when i say some people will think that the end is near,
> > because, well just b/c.
>
> I feel science has already become a pseudo solipsism. where scientific
Science is merely an accident of the evolution of culture. Humans have
experimented with how to understand stuff and it just happens that
science helps us understand how the universe works better than a
solipsism arguing there's no definite way to know at all. Its no
accident that science is the preferred method of understanding things,
much like capitalism is the preferred way of economics, and
reciprocity is the preferred method of justice. Its natural selection
hacking away at culture. If something better comes along, kiss science
an eventual goodbye.
> method is the ruler of everything - ignoring the fact that it is a
> victim of human subjectivity - and all experiences we have are
> explainable by it, not because it's reasonable or provable, but because
> it's convenient. Our lack of insight makes science a new God rather than
> a useful tool, and because of that, humanity really is f*cked.
Why? You fall victim to a solipsism in this statement by presuming
there is only human subjectivity involved. Science is a corrective
measure to human subjectivity time and again. Does the scientific
method exist with the purpose of lying to us? Nature and the sciences
that study it are entirely nuetral and have no purpose to lie to us.
let me take an example of how you and i rely on science with mutual
consent: If I kick George Bush in the nuts and am indicted with
evidence gathered that points to me at fault through the sifting and
winnowing of facts related to the case such as shoe prints on the
crotch, me on video camera with a big grin and a *oof* on George, as I
have my foot planted in his jimmy. Witnesses that point me out in a
lineup, etc. Its a messy method on occasion, but its correct most of
the time, and keeps correcting itself. Science works, otherwise we
would not use it more than any other way. Even religions use shallow
pseudoscience to prove its validity, because of the potency *of
science*.
If all we sense in reality is something we cannot understand because
our methods to know it are lying to us, then try quitting tobacco, for
our senses deceive the reality you're not jonesing for a light. Heck,
if you got the mind for it, that might work.
> But no kidding when I say some people will think that there is no God,
> because, well, just b/c.
That was kind of a joke. People have been thinking the world is soon
to end for thousands of years, and its not just the Christians who
believe it. They have no new compelling reason to stop.
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
EAC Memory Hole Operator
johac
Meteorite Debris <cx1...@bcghfarg.pbz.nh.ROT13> wrote:
Constructive nihilism in the works of Gibson
Prematerial Discourses: Cultural semanticism, nationalism and
capitalist situationism
Expressions of Stasis: Predialectic discourse in the works of Joyce
What a hoot!
johac
What's wrong with reductionism? One can learn a lot about something by
studying it's components. I work in science. I don't consider myself
'simplistic'.
and reject anything that challenges your world view out
> of hand. Read, think, analyse for yourself.
I do this every day. If there is no evidence to support a view, I
reject it.
The post modern challenge
> has some good points, and no complaint about poor writing style, or
> alleged "self defeating sentences" will make the questions go away.
And what has 'postmodernism' produced? How many great inventions came
out of it? Can you name one?
Ted King
D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote:
I apologize for being such a pest, DJ, and straying from the topic of
this thread a bit (okay, maybe quite a bit), but I'm hoping you might be
inclined to give me some feedback on some thoughts that have been
generated by this exchange.
As I was reading up on postmodernism I ran into this quote by Zizek:
"Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire--insofar
as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but
results from the place it occupies in the structure--we must, by
structural necessity, fall prey to the illusion that the power of
fascination belongs to the object as such." That got me wondering about
a "Zennish" satori. (I'm thinking not of Beat Zen or a formalistic Zen,
but a Zen akin to the philosophical Taoism of Chang-tzu.) The word
"satori" seems to "point to", in a paradoxical way, the achievement of
awareness of "what is" without "structural necessity"; that is, to
"escape" the illusion that the power of fascination belongs to the
object as such. Or perhaps, to put it another way, to slip the bonds of
subjectivity "about" objects of perception. Maybe being in a "state" of
satori is trans-subjective rather than subjective or intersubjective.
Reality experienced without the filter of subjective symbolic reality.
Ted
Elf Sternberg
Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> writes:
>If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
>modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
>about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
I have. It's critics are right. The relativist position that
"science" is only one way to view the universe, no more or less valid
than voodoo, is the kind of response that deserves to be tossed onto the
ashcan of history.
I fully accept that people have their "own way" of looking at
the universe. I do not accept that our brains lack a common frame of
reference. We have a word for people in such a state: we call them
insane.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
EAC Department of Corrective Phrenology
Elf Sternberg
Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> writes:
>By "post modernism", I mean the proposal that our human subjectivity is
>so foundationally intertwined with our language and thought-patterns
>that we cannot claim to be able to percieve reality either in text or
>perception.
>This critique challenges the scientific claim to be able to observe
>reality objectively enough as to make theories by which experiences can
>be measured.
Some philosophical positions are so intellectually corrupt that
they deserve the drubbing they get. Post-modernism is one such concept.
I'm sorry, Leadryl, but I'm going to ignore your original request and
state, categorically, that post-modernism's core assumptions are simply
erroneous, and I'm willing to bet that you bet your life on
contra-post-modernist thinking every time you visit a doctor's office.
Igtheist
Great minds think alike! Read my post which was sent at the same time
as yours.
When I look at post modernism all I see is intellectual dishonesty.
The whole purpose of which is what, to vandalize the great work put in
by many people to make the world a better place? Science is king and
will continue to make inroads on previous areas considered taboo and
outside it's sphere of influence. Despite how the politically
correct would have it.
Igtheist
> the arguments for and against God?
Yes, I have.
As Keith M. Parson's writes in his book 'God and the Burden of Proof",
chapter 1 - Plantinga and the Rationality of Theism on page 60:
"The majority of theists are not going to find Plantinga's approach
very satisfying. Most theists still want to be able to argue that
theism is TRUE and not merely that atheists cannot prove it false or
irrational."
I think post modernism suffers from this problem. Based on it's
premises one is equally justified in believing in UFOs, voodoo, and
such nonsense as any established "respectable" religion. I think
post modernism should be more appealing to those wacko groups since it
places them on equal footing with not only christianity but with
science. Thus giving them quite undeserved credibility.
> Please note: I am not interested in "post modernism is crap" or "post
> modernism is a fad which will die out" or any other flame.
I'm curious. Why not? After all, you should be.
>
> If you haven't read enough philosophy to understand the precepts of post
> modernism, then you really should, since it has very real questions
> about our claim to scientific "knowledge" that need to be addressed.
I have read enough philosophy and I don't agree with post modernist
conclusions. Post modernists are "poor students"* of science. They
don't understand the science they are trying to be critics of.
*For those not in the know this is a charge post modernists make of
science.
DJ Nozem
(...)
>I apologize for being such a pest, DJ, and straying from the topic of
>this thread a bit (okay, maybe quite a bit), but I'm hoping you might be
>inclined to give me some feedback on some thoughts that have been
>generated by this exchange.
Of course.
>As I was reading up on postmodernism I ran into this quote by Zizek:
>"Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire--insofar
>as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but
>results from the place it occupies in the structure--we must, by
>structural necessity, fall prey to the illusion that the power of
>fascination belongs to the object as such."
mmm.... structural necessity. Postmodernists are quite fond of
applying the term necessity to adjectives like 'historical'
'structural' and the like. Generally, the relations they wish to
express are more subtle than that.
Allow me to go off the trail myself for a little rant, I'll return to
your questions shortly.
Reading up on Zizek thru popcultures.com I stumbled upon this
revealing quote: "Did you see 'The Shining', based on Stephen King's
novel? This is America at it's worst. Three people, a family, in a big
hotel and still the space is too small for them and they start killing
each other."
It's used to demonstrate a difference in attitudes between the
Japanese and the Americans, but still, such arrogant ignorance! If I
go by Zizek's writing I'd say that there is much more depth, subtlety
and truth about the human character in Kubrick's movies than in the
verbose psychobabble of Lacan. He has certainly had a greater effect
on our culture.
Apart of the most obvious reading of 'The Shining' as a picture about
mental breakdown in an alienating and lonely environment, there are
other views worth taking into account, some, for instance, have
maintained that it is an allegorical tale about the genocide of the
Indian people by the wasps and the way the current merkin culture
doesn't deal with it. (the things you learn lurking on a.m.k....)
Deconstruction of the movie as an expression of some supposed
obsession with personal space in the American culture is more than
your average utter nonsense, it is a crime against justice.
Perhaps I even have a larger point to make here, literary psychology
may be more effective and profound when it doesn't pose as nonfiction.
It is certainly true of movies that feelings are to be expressed, not
told. This is most obvious when it is done the wrong way, for instance
see George Lucas' 'love' scenes in 'Attack of the Clones'.
Back to our scheduled program:
If I got it right, what Zizek is saying is that when I experience a
desire for a certain thing, my perception is such that this desire is
caused by some kind of fascination emanated from the object?
I don't know if the human brain necessarily functions that way,
furthermore, it is not always an illusion, many things have evolved
means to stimulate arousal in the observer (fermones in humans, scent
in fruit, perfumes, etcetera).
The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
humans veil it.
>That got me wondering about
>a "Zennish" satori. (I'm thinking not of Beat Zen or a formalistic Zen,
>but a Zen akin to the philosophical Taoism of Chang-tzu.) The word
>"satori" seems to "point to", in a paradoxical way, the achievement of
>awareness of "what is" without "structural necessity"; that is, to
>"escape" the illusion that the power of fascination belongs to the
>object as such. Or perhaps, to put it another way, to slip the bonds of
>subjectivity "about" objects of perception. Maybe being in a "state" of
>satori is trans-subjective rather than subjective or intersubjective.
Do you mean that perception in such a state is trans-subjective?
Getting rid of the 'illusion' that the power of fascination belongs to
an object seems more like a reconciliation with subjectivity to me
than some transcendence of it, by the way.
>Reality experienced without the filter of subjective symbolic reality.
"The beginnings and endings of this world, for which words were
conceived solely to speak of. Now remove these words and what
remains?"
- The models we have of existence are not strictly personal, they are
more intersubjective.
- We cannot erect an impenetrable wall between the human being's
senses and brain on the one hand and the constructions of reality we
make on the other hand.
Perhaps it may be possible for one to reach a state of mind in which
the designations and theories that we have formulated are eliminated
from perception, these are after all acquired. As far as I have
understood the clear picture of hardware/software doesn't apply to our
brains, the processes carried out do alter the material structure, so
I do have my doubts about that possibility.
But it doesn't really matter here, perception in such a case is not
pure reflection of reality as it really is, just as the hawk, who does
not have all these social constructions of reality bothering him, does
not form a pure reflection of reality when he flies between the trees.
The only pure reflection can be in a mindless mirror, we are not
mindless mirrors forming passive reflections, nor are we to be such.
Like the hawk, we are animals interacting with existence and our
standards for truth are to be in accordance to our requirements in
this interaction.
Ted King
The alacrity and acumen of your critique of Zizek made for an
interesting and cogent read. You provided me with a context for
understanding Zizek's quote in a way quite different from the one
presented in the article I read where I found the quote.
> Back to our scheduled program:
>
> If I got it right, what Zizek is saying is that when I experience a
> desire for a certain thing, my perception is such that this desire is
> caused by some kind of fascination emanated from the object?
>
This is what I took him to be saying: that we come to feel that the
value of an object is intrinsic to the object, but that is an illusion
caused by the structure of our internal environment. I'm not sure if I
misread him and/or projected too much of my own meaning onto what he
wrote (ironically).
> I don't know if the human brain necessarily functions that way,
> furthermore, it is not always an illusion, many things have evolved
> means to stimulate arousal in the observer (fermones in humans, scent
> in fruit, perfumes, etcetera).
I see what you mean: his use of "fascination" in this context does
seem odd/vague. Perhaps I really did project too much by construing
that as "value".
>
> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
> humans veil it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
>
> >That got me wondering about
> >a "Zennish" satori. (I'm thinking not of Beat Zen or a formalistic Zen,
> >but a Zen akin to the philosophical Taoism of Chang-tzu.) The word
> >"satori" seems to "point to", in a paradoxical way, the achievement of
> >awareness of "what is" without "structural necessity"; that is, to
> >"escape" the illusion that the power of fascination belongs to the
> >object as such. Or perhaps, to put it another way, to slip the bonds of
> >subjectivity "about" objects of perception. Maybe being in a "state" of
> >satori is trans-subjective rather than subjective or intersubjective.
>
> Do you mean that perception in such a state is trans-subjective?
> Getting rid of the 'illusion' that the power of fascination belongs to
> an object seems more like a reconciliation with subjectivity to me
> than some transcendence of it, by the way.
>
Perhaps "trans-" wasn't quite the right prefix. I meant it to mean "on
or to the other side of" rather than "beyond". What I was thinking is
that satori is a state of mind where we "step aside" of the internal
structures that give meaning to the value we place on objects that
give us the illusion the value is an intrinsic property of the object.
So the object is not experienced as being "good" or "bad" thing but
simply a thing. And then further that the "object-ness" perception
itself is also a result of an internal structure which creates the
illusion of separateness so that I see "objects" rather than
experience a continuous whole.
> >Reality experienced without the filter of subjective symbolic reality.
>
> "The beginnings and endings of this world, for which words were
> conceived solely to speak of. Now remove these words and what
> remains?"
>
> - The models we have of existence are not strictly personal, they are
> more intersubjective.
>
> - We cannot erect an impenetrable wall between the human being's
> senses and brain on the one hand and the constructions of reality we
> make on the other hand.
That is the heart of the matter for me with respect to "satori"! I
have had fleeting moments of "separateness" melting away - it is
difficult to describe with discrete symbol units of language, but -
where I was sort of simply experiencing the continuous wholeness of
reality. In a sense "I-ness" was "set-aside"; though that's not really
it either - it's as though I-ness merged with otherness to be just
isness (but that doesn't seem to be the right words either).
>
> Perhaps it may be possible for one to reach a state of mind in which
> the designations and theories that we have formulated are eliminated
> from perception, these are after all acquired. As far as I have
> understood the clear picture of hardware/software doesn't apply to our
> brains, the processes carried out do alter the material structure, so
> I do have my doubts about that possibility.
>
I see what you mean. But maybe the edifice of perceptual models is an
subjective/intersubjective ornamentation on a fundamental flow of
experience via neural activity that remains essentially as it was when
we were born with almost no sense of separateness and objectness.
Maybe we can sometimes through training or accident "tap into" that
kind of non-modeled perception that has been with us since the
beginning. I wonder if much creative inspiration for art and new
scientific perspectives comes from "wandering into" that personal
primeval realm.
> But it doesn't really matter here, perception in such a case is not
> pure reflection of reality as it really is, just as the hawk, who does
> not have all these social constructions of reality bothering him, does
> not form a pure reflection of reality when he flies between the trees.
>
>
> The only pure reflection can be in a mindless mirror, we are not
> mindless mirrors forming passive reflections, nor are we to be such.
> Like the hawk, we are animals interacting with existence and our
> standards for truth are to be in accordance to our requirements in
> this interaction.
Wow! I like the analogy/metaphor. But the "...standards for truth are
to be in accordeance to our requirements in this interaction." has me
perplexed. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure of
what implications of this are. Does this mean that those who strive to
"objectify" science are going to only be able to achieve the broadest
human intersubjective perspective at best? I'm not sure I can
completely concur with this human-relative limitation of "truth".
Thank you very much for responding.
Ted
Leadryl
I would read Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature" and
"Implications of Pragmatism". They show an understanding of the critique
of language, and then build a pragmatist response to it.
Leadryl
>>I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word "prove"
>>from scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
>
>
> I think that's part of science already. Any scientist worth his salt
> should be willing to drop any theory that no longer fits the data, or
> if there's a better one around. Scientists, when questioned deeply,
> will say that "proof" isn't part of what they do.
Right! so lack of "proof", or indeed that ability to find "proof" for
something is not a weakness to a hypothesis. PRAGMATICALLY, sisnce you
brought that issue up, humans believe a thesis until they have reason to
change it, not the other way around. A human is not born with Cartesian
doubt, they are born trusting thier senses. Pragmatically, then, it is
not that the proposer of a thesis has to prove it, it is that a denier
of a thesis has to prove otherwise.
It is not "stupid" nor "supersticious" to believe in God without
"proof", simply because people believe in science without "proof". It is
belief in a system that explains their experiences until they are other
wise convinced. This convincing, scientifically, is impossible, so
belief in a god, or even in a specific God is perfectly rational and
justified.
Leadryl
>>Not so. Richard Rorty's pragmatic approach suggests that we believe
>>things because they work for us, not because we can philosophically
>>"prove" them. We accept science as a method because it has worked for us
>>so far. This means that our meaning is extracted from our chosen
>>paradigm. We breathe because we choose to believe that life is better
>>than death - we have no proof, we just simply choose to believe it.
>
>
> Ah, but can we *prove* that anyone is *actually* alive, at that point? No.
> So we *assume* life?
>
> Anyhow, in that case, theism is a great thing to believe in... If one
> prefers death, destruction, violence, rape, and all the other things which
> are the antithesis of civilization. Otherwise, there's hardly a place for it
> at all.
> To someone who believes post-modernism (which I still say is the
> coward's solipsism), I cannot *prove*, of course, that theism causes those
> things, but to anyone who can observe cause-and-effect, it should be pretty
> damn obvious.
Yes, of course, it's all "religions" fault. Never, in all the history of
death and violence did an athiest (pol pot, stalin) ever cause death
violence or mayhem.
And never has anyone ever linked the religious wars and violence to
people who markedly did not follow the teachings of the religions that
they claimed to follow. Never have the crusades been thought to be about
hatred rather than religion. Never has the inquisition been linked to
power holding rather than faith.
It's always about religion, never about simple human greed, hatred,
anger, fear, rasicm or simple evil.
Never.> Simply put, how can one assume that people living 3000+ years ago in mud
> huts, quaking in their own waste whenever thunder crashed, knew more about
> *anything* than we know today. That's a completely unwarranted assumption.
> The notion that I should accept that as even a possibility is somewhat more
> preposterous than you accepting as fact my claim that there's a 200 foot
> long cockroach standing right behind you, about to eat you. After all,
> although both ideas were pulled completely out of people's assholes, my idea
> at least has the merit that we know there *are* such things as cockroaches,
> and they do eat things. (yes, according to post-modernism, we still
> effectively know cockroaches exist; no one disagrees, do they?)
Yes, and the modern world with it's more bloody wars than ever in
history, rampant raping of the environment and a child dying of
starvation every 3.2 seconds has such a better track record for
understanding reality than people living in the years before. We
constantly prove how much we know about the world by understanding atoms
and blowing people up with them.
I'd vote that those people in huts 3000 years ago were MUCH closer to
God than we are today.
> Again, unless given a very good reason, I won't be replying again. I
> respect your ability to discuss, but I simply cannot continue to bring
> myself to discuss such an idiotic idea as though it were fact. To me, that
> someone would come up with such crap indicates that we haven't had much in
> the way of philosophers since Locke.
As I said, I'm have no interest in trying to justify my position, I was
wanting to hear if there had been any people who had understood post
modern philosophy since Derrida, and still thought atheism had some
validity.
So far, no.
Leadryl
> Very well. First note that you are presenting science as a 'faith
> system'. I would say this implies that it is a discourse shared and
> engaged in by various people, thus requiring something like
> intersubjectivity or superimposition of a conceptual framework and
> experience-swapping :-)
Absolutely, language is a conveyer of relationship, and within that we
can share experiences. But our own interpretations are added to language
both at speaking and at hearing, so though it is useful, it is not
perfect. Particularly, not perfect enough to share scientific "proof".
This is indicated by the number of misunderstandings between me and
other writers on this thread.
Incidently, experience sharing is the only access we have to science,
since 99% of us have not done any of the experiments, and 100% of us
have not done ALL the experiments. We trust that the scientists are
telling us the truth.
Why?
Leadryl
No, more the point that most scientists don't understand what science is
about. Science is about probability and inferrence, not about proof. The
claim to have proven anything is ludicrous. Phlogiston (look it up) was
"proven" until oxygen was hypothesised. All science can give is theories
that work so far until other theories come up (ie, Kuhn's scientific
revolutions)
Science was unable to address the issue of "dark matter" 100 years ago,
because it hadn't streached it's scope wide enough. Science cannot
address the issue of God because it does not streatch it's scope wide
enough. It can only come up with theories about gravity, it cannot come
up with theories about WHY gravity came to be in the begeinning.
Leadryl
>>Don't be simplistic and reductionist, like most modern scientific
>>scholars have,
>
>
> What's wrong with reductionism? One can learn a lot about something by
> studying it's components. I work in science. I don't consider myself
> 'simplistic'.
Yes, but briefly gazing over a philosophy and ignoring it because you
don't like it on the surface is simplistic. Then calling it "crap"
because you didn't like or understand one author is reductionistic.
That's what Dawkins did. He didn't understand how you can be post modern
and still have respect for science. He saw, in the critiques of post
modernism a loss of the validity of his job, and he reacted with a
knee-jerk.
I used to think like that, I came out of philosophy lectures saying
"crap, the world is real". I totally misunderstood what the implications
really were. Rorty and Kuhn's pragmatic philosophies show how the
critiques of language and thought-structures under pin a pragmatist view
of the world, whgere we trust things until shown otherwise, rather than
a Cartesian view, where we doubt things until proven.
Humans do not think in a Cartesian way, we thing in a pragmatist way.
Because of this, Kuhn continues, one paradigm cannot critique another,
because thier basis for critique is founded in the paradigm. This means
that science being forced to fit the bible (as in the 15-16th centuries)
is just as absurd as religion being forced to prove itself by the
paradigm of science.
> and reject anything that challenges your world view out
>
>>of hand. Read, think, analyse for yourself.
>
>
> I do this every day. If there is no evidence to support a view, I
> reject it.
No, you don't. You don't reject out of hand the statement that your
wife/husband/father/mother/girlfriend/boyfriend loves you without
empiric proof. You choose to trust it until shown otherwise. You don't
reject that your senses reflect reality without proof, you choose to
trust it until your experiences show otherwise. That's how people work.
> The post modern challenge
>
>>has some good points, and no complaint about poor writing style, or
>>alleged "self defeating sentences" will make the questions go away.
>
>
> And what has 'postmodernism' produced? How many great inventions came
> out of it? Can you name one?
Measuring by "great inventions" is simply proving Kuhn right - you are
measuring one philosophy by the metrics proposed by another philosophy.
Post modernism doesn't claim to be able to make "great inventions", so
who cares if it doesn't?
David
> David wrote:
<sigh> the last post was *supposed* to be my last, but I feel obligated to
respond...
Did I say religion was the *only* cause? no. Power can cause it, too.
>
> And never has anyone ever linked the religious wars and violence to
> people who markedly did not follow the teachings of the religions that
> they claimed to follow. Never have the crusades been thought to be about
> hatred rather than religion. Never has the inquisition been linked to
> power holding rather than faith.
Not in any college level history or anthropology text *I've* ever seen, nor
anyone I've talked to about the middle ages. Where did you get that idea?
Those things *contributed*, but religion is usually considered to be the
major cause.
>
> It's always about religion, never about simple human greed, hatred,
> anger, fear, rasicm or simple evil.
nice strawman. Did you make it yourself?
>
> Never.> Simply put, how can one assume that people living 3000+ years ago
in mud
> > huts, quaking in their own waste whenever thunder crashed, knew more
about
> > *anything* than we know today. That's a completely unwarranted
assumption.
> > The notion that I should accept that as even a possibility is somewhat
more
> > preposterous than you accepting as fact my claim that there's a 200 foot
> > long cockroach standing right behind you, about to eat you. After all,
> > although both ideas were pulled completely out of people's assholes, my
idea
> > at least has the merit that we know there *are* such things as
cockroaches,
> > and they do eat things. (yes, according to post-modernism, we still
> > effectively know cockroaches exist; no one disagrees, do they?)
>
> Yes, and the modern world with it's more bloody wars than ever in
> history
you'd better back up that assertion in a hurry, or retract it.
> , rampant raping of the environment and a child dying of
> starvation every 3.2 seconds has such a better track record for
You put 6 billion people from 3,000 years ago on earth, and see how quickly
the population dies off. Hell, see what the average life expectancy is. I'd
sit back and laugh at the sick expression on your face when you realized how
stupid that claim was.
> understanding reality than people living in the years before. We
> constantly prove how much we know about the world by understanding atoms
> and blowing people up with them.
And by generating electricity, allowing us to keep more people alive, feed
more people, and do many, many other wonderful things. Would *you* rather
live in a place where you can wallow in human waste all day? Die of fear and
old age at 29?
>
> I'd vote that those people in huts 3000 years ago were MUCH closer to
> God than we are today.
If there were a god, you're probably right; after all, they were with him so
much sooner after birth.
>
> > Again, unless given a very good reason, I won't be replying again. I
> > respect your ability to discuss, but I simply cannot continue to bring
> > myself to discuss such an idiotic idea as though it were fact. To me,
that
> > someone would come up with such crap indicates that we haven't had much
in
> > the way of philosophers since Locke.
>
> As I said, I'm have no interest in trying to justify my position, I was
obviously.
> wanting to hear if there had been any people who had understood post
> modern philosophy since Derrida, and still thought atheism had some
> validity.
>
> So far, no.
You're confusing issues: We just don't think that *post modern philosophy*
has any validity. Because it's stupid, and is simply an excuse to claim that
no idea is any better than any other. Intellectual cowardice at its best. I
guess that's why you refuse to justify your position: you can't.
--
Dave
a.a. #2049 apatriot #17 || AIM screen name: Non Homogenized
EAC Director of R.A.M.(classified) || an Official EAC Corruptor of Innocents
Satan, according to Bluskie || FYK || UDP for WebTV!
Igtheist
> No, more the point that most scientists don't understand what science is
> about.
A false and obviously stupid and bald assertion. Who do you think
knows best what science is about? Pizza chefs?
This is one of the funniest things about post-modernists. They
usually have very poor training in science. When told by scientists
or by someone with extensive scientific training that they are wrong
they turn around and claim that the expert is wrong. This is a
perfect example of the incompetent person believing themselves to be
accomplished because they lack the very skills needed to properly
judge themselves.
> Science is about probability and inferrence, not about proof.
It is about proof in the sense of "to prove" not in the sense of to
deduce. "To prove" means "to test". You have been reading too many
anti-science tracts.
> The claim to have proven anything is ludicrous.
Can you prove that?
> Phlogiston (look it up) was "proven" until oxygen was hypothesised.
Says who? Proven in what sense?
> All science can give is theories
> that work so far until other theories come up (ie, Kuhn's scientific
> revolutions)
In other words, science is about reduction of errors and improving
knowledge.
> Science was unable to address the issue of "dark matter" 100 years ago,
> because it hadn't streached it's scope wide enough.
So what? You know this is one of the big problems with you post
modernists. You set up unachievable goals then fault science for not
meeting them. Science is not omniscience. It's not about being
able to know and prove everything now and forever. It is a process
to reduce error and improve our understanding of the world. Of course
it progresses!
This obsession with perfection is at the root of many attacks of post
modernists against science. Science assumes people are fallible. It
knows we start from ignorance. So to attack science with sentences
like "Post modernism teaches us that scientists are fallible" is just
plain STUPID! Don't you get it? All the attacks that post
modernists are making are straw man attacks.
> Science cannot
> address the issue of God because it does not streatch it's scope wide
> enough.
Sure we can. God is a fictitious belief that serves a evolutionary
purpose.
> It can only come up with theories about gravity, it cannot come
> up with theories about WHY gravity came to be in the begeinning.
Why do you think that? Now ask yourself a question. If in ten years
a scientist comes up with theory as to why gravity came to be then
will you change your mind? I doubt it. Why? Because you are closed
minded. How can you possibly KNOW what discoveries are going to be
made in that area since it is totally uncharted territory. The only
reason you would be able to say that is if you already knew why
gravity came into being and knew it was due to some form of
"unnatural" reason.
I don't know how many times I have hear the "Scientists will never be
able to explain why, ..." only to see the person proven wrong.
Beowulf
ejaculated:
>Beowulf wrote:
>> Could you recommend some books on post-modernism? I haven't read
>> anything on it since I was in college (the early 90s). I read some
>> Jencks and Foucault and a couple novels by John Fowles. What should I
>> read to update myself?
>
>I would read Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature" and
>"Implications of Pragmatism". They show an understanding of the critique
>of language, and then build a pragmatist response to it.
Thanks for the recommendation.
--
EAC Eater of Meatpies
Atheist #1942, Zymurgist #9
"It is the dice, in fact, that play God with the universe."
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
postm...@attglobal.net ab...@pacbell.net live...@icrmedia.org
claus
"read anything on it" Does this mean post modernism is as discernible
object that normally has visible markings upon it?
You went to college in the "early 90's"? My, my you certainly have endured
a great number of life experiences.
claus
"Beowulf" <beowulf_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dca9eb7....@news.alterdial.uu.net...
DJ Nozem
>D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dc563b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:49:32 GMT, Ted King <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(...)
>> >As I was reading up on postmodernism I ran into this quote by Zizek:
>> >"Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire--insofar
>> >as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but
>> >results from the place it occupies in the structure--we must, by
>> >structural necessity, fall prey to the illusion that the power of
>> >fascination belongs to the object as such."
>> mmm.... structural necessity. Postmodernists are quite fond of
>> applying the term necessity to adjectives like 'historical'
>> 'structural' and the like. Generally, the relations they wish to
>> express are more subtle than that.
(...)
>The alacrity and acumen of your critique of Zizek made for an
>interesting and cogent read. You provided me with a context for
>understanding Zizek's quote in a way quite different from the one
>presented in the article I read where I found the quote.
I should write more booze-inspired rants!
Anyway, was the article by any chance online?
>> Back to our scheduled program:
>> If I got it right, what Zizek is saying is that when I experience a
>> desire for a certain thing, my perception is such that this desire is
>> caused by some kind of fascination emanated from the object?
>This is what I took him to be saying: that we come to feel that the
>value of an object is intrinsic to the object, but that is an illusion
>caused by the structure of our internal environment. I'm not sure if I
>misread him and/or projected too much of my own meaning onto what he
>wrote (ironically).
>> I don't know if the human brain necessarily functions that way,
>> furthermore, it is not always an illusion, many things have evolved
>> means to stimulate arousal in the observer (fermones in humans, scent
>> in fruit, perfumes, etcetera).
>I see what you mean: his use of "fascination" in this context does
>seem odd/vague. Perhaps I really did project too much by construing
>that as "value".
Well, I like your projection. If it is such, I mean, I haven't read
the context of the quote. But through your interpretation Zizek is
saying something a bit more profound and I think we should take that
as a basis.
>> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
>> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
>> humans veil it.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Luckily, I am, but it's difficult to explain. If we go by your
analysis, what Zizek describing is how we are deluded into thinking
that our subjective perception is objective. If we were not to have
such delusions our perception would not be any less filtered through
personal tastes/attitudes/ideas, only we would recognize that it is.
Does this render our perception objective? Interesting question. I
assumed the negative in the above part you were not quite sure about,
but it's open to discussion.
>> >That got me wondering about
>> >a "Zennish" satori. (I'm thinking not of Beat Zen or a formalistic Zen,
>> >but a Zen akin to the philosophical Taoism of Chang-tzu.) The word
>> >"satori" seems to "point to", in a paradoxical way, the achievement of
>> >awareness of "what is" without "structural necessity"; that is, to
>> >"escape" the illusion that the power of fascination belongs to the
>> >object as such. Or perhaps, to put it another way, to slip the bonds of
>> >subjectivity "about" objects of perception. Maybe being in a "state" of
>> >satori is trans-subjective rather than subjective or intersubjective.
>> Do you mean that perception in such a state is trans-subjective?
>> Getting rid of the 'illusion' that the power of fascination belongs to
>> an object seems more like a reconciliation with subjectivity to me
>> than some transcendence of it, by the way.
>Perhaps "trans-" wasn't quite the right prefix. I meant it to mean "on
>or to the other side of" rather than "beyond". What I was thinking is
>that satori is a state of mind where we "step aside" of the internal
>structures that give meaning to the value we place on objects that
>give us the illusion the value is an intrinsic property of the object.
>So the object is not experienced as being "good" or "bad" thing but
>simply a thing. And then further that the "object-ness" perception
>itself is also a result of an internal structure which creates the
>illusion of separateness so that I see "objects" rather than
>experience a continuous whole.
Cool.
>> >Reality experienced without the filter of subjective symbolic reality.
>> "The beginnings and endings of this world, for which words were
>> conceived solely to speak of. Now remove these words and what
>> remains?"
>> - The models we have of existence are not strictly personal, they are
>> more intersubjective.
>> - We cannot erect an impenetrable wall between the human being's
>> senses and brain on the one hand and the constructions of reality we
>> make on the other hand.
>That is the heart of the matter for me with respect to "satori"! I
>have had fleeting moments of "separateness" melting away - it is
>difficult to describe with discrete symbol units of language, but -
>where I was sort of simply experiencing the continuous wholeness of
>reality. In a sense "I-ness" was "set-aside"; though that's not really
>it either - it's as though I-ness merged with otherness to be just
>isness (but that doesn't seem to be the right words either).
You feel a sort of oneness with all of existence, right? Sounds nice,
I might try it once. Any recommendations? ( books, videos, courses,
whatever )
Anyway, what I meant to say was that our sensory apparatus and brain
are already part of a certain manner of relating to existence and
therefor cannot be separated from the reality we experience. Managing
to rid your perception of the categories you have been learned to see
doesn't mean you see through a different set of eyes.
>> Perhaps it may be possible for one to reach a state of mind in which
>> the designations and theories that we have formulated are eliminated
>> from perception, these are after all acquired. As far as I have
>> understood the clear picture of hardware/software doesn't apply to our
>> brains, the processes carried out do alter the material structure, so
>> I do have my doubts about that possibility.
>I see what you mean. But maybe the edifice of perceptual models is an
>subjective/intersubjective ornamentation on a fundamental flow of
>experience via neural activity that remains essentially as it was when
>we were born with almost no sense of separateness and objectness.
>Maybe we can sometimes through training or accident "tap into" that
>kind of non-modeled perception that has been with us since the
>beginning. I wonder if much creative inspiration for art and new
>scientific perspectives comes from "wandering into" that personal
>primeval realm.
Possible. Changes in perception can be summoned by other means as
well, though. Drugs come to mind.
>> But it doesn't really matter here, perception in such a case is not
>> pure reflection of reality as it really is, just as the hawk, who does
>> not have all these social constructions of reality bothering him, does
>> not form a pure reflection of reality when he flies between the trees.
>> The only pure reflection can be in a mindless mirror, we are not
>> mindless mirrors forming passive reflections, nor are we to be such.
>> Like the hawk, we are animals interacting with existence and our
>> standards for truth are to be in accordance to our requirements in
>> this interaction.
>Wow! I like the analogy/metaphor. But the "...standards for truth are
>to be in accordeance to our requirements in this interaction." has me
>perplexed. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure of
>what implications of this are. Does this mean that those who strive to
>"objectify" science are going to only be able to achieve the broadest
>human intersubjective perspective at best?
I don't think intersubjective is the way to put it. The
intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is virtual. We could all
go through the same steps and then we'd perceive the same results.
Leadryl is IMO right on this topic, although I think (s)he carries the
consequences too far.
I don't know why people would want to (further) objectify science. The
only effort I can think were attempts to impose a nomological model
where it doesn't belong or is highly problematic, i.e. in history,
anthropology, sociology, economy, etcetera.
These projects could not completely succeed because the concepts used
to conjure up lawlikeness were not exact enough and examined well
enough. This may change when some of the missing links between
physics, chemistry, biology and eventually sociology/psychology are
filled in, as I've heard people who know more about these things than
me predict.
>I'm not sure I can
>completely concur with this human-relative limitation of "truth".
Hey, we won't be human forever.
Anyway, you're right to question my writing on this topic, it is
muddled nonsense. What I meant to say was that we shouldn't idealize a
passive reflection (as in naive realism) but recognise and embrace the
fact that we have and require an interpretation reality, for it to be
meaningful. What's a truth if you can't make sense of it and do
anything with it?
But ways of acting and forms of meaning can take on many different
shapes, so what on earth are these requirements for our interaction I
was talking about? They run the gamut and I certainly wouldn't fix any
either, so how could they serve as a limitative criterium? I wasn't
critical and careful enough there. Quality vs. reply time, or was it
just the beer?
thamus
> thamus wrote:
>
>>>I suggested that human subjectivity removes the word "prove" from
>>>scientific vocabulary, since NOTHING can be "proved".
>>
>>
>> I think that's part of science already. Any scientist worth his salt
>> should be willing to drop any theory that no longer fits the data, or if
>> there's a better one around. Scientists, when questioned deeply, will
>> say that "proof" isn't part of what they do.
>
> Right! so lack of "proof", or indeed that ability to find "proof" for
> something is not a weakness to a hypothesis.
You are equivocating on the word "proof". Lack of *evidence* is
definately a weakness in a hypothosis. If a hypothisis has no
evidence, why propose it at all?
>PRAGMATICALLY, sisnce you
> brought that issue up, humans believe a thesis until they have reason to
> change it, not the other way around.
This is, quite frankly, bullshit. There is simply no possible way to get this
out of pragmatism.
> A human is not born with Cartesian
> doubt, they are born trusting thier senses. Pragmatically, then, it is not
> that the proposer of a thesis has to prove it, it is that a denier of a
> thesis has to prove otherwise.
All the proposer has to do is show that a theory explains the data better.
This is easily done by making predictions based on that theory.
> It is not "stupid" nor "supersticious" to believe in God without "proof",
> simply because people believe in science without "proof". It is belief in
> a system that explains their experiences until they are other wise
> convinced. This convincing, scientifically, is impossible, so belief in a
> god, or even in a specific God is perfectly rational and justified.
What, exactly, does theism exaplain? What is evidence for theism? What
is evidence against theism? What predictions does theism make?
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
How To Be A Bible Apologist
http://www.thamus.org/eac/bible-apologist.html
Leadryl
incompetant and stupid, assuming that your half-formed understanding of
post modern analysis of scientific progress is all you need, and
defining it as attacking a "straw man", yet not knowing anything about
it's basis (as shown in your lack of understanding about the phlogiston
comment).
Read Thomas Kuhn, then get back to me.
Please, when you do, be a bit less abusive too.
Leadryl
> You're confusing issues: We just don't think that *post modern philosophy*
> has any validity. Because it's stupid, and is simply an excuse to claim that
> no idea is any better than any other. Intellectual cowardice at its best. I
> guess that's why you refuse to justify your position: you can't.
Is that why you fear post modernism? Becauggests that there is no single
arbiter between ideas. Particularly that science cannot arbitrate
between ideas because it is one of those ideas.
This scares people (religious and atheist), because they want to have
some reason to say "I know this". But in the end, we don't even have
reason to say with absolute certainty that "I know you exist". We work
on pragmatism - I believe it because it works.
I said fear, because the violent reaction I have had from people (abuse,
etc) has shown fear of the new more than anything else. A naturl huiman
response, not, however, a good attitude for "science.
Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
particular.
I was looking for somebody who HAD read these people, actually
understood what they were saying, rather than what some guy in a pub
told you they were saying, and had thought about the issues. I was
looking for an educated, intelligent, committed atheist who could
interract on a friendly non-abusive level and talk through the
implications of post modern pragmatism to thier firmly held beliefs.
I found none. I can only assume that the fierceness of belief needed to
be a committed atheist results in people just as closed minded as they
accuse theists of being.
I pity you, that you do not read people who challenge the way you think,
and you refuse to recognise that the paradigms that you are enslaved to
are just that - paradigms - not universal truth systems.
I will moniter this thread for about a week, then I will unsubscribe,
and shake the dust off my sandals. If anyone wants to actually discuss
the issue that I raised out of interest, that I will respond, I will,
from now on, ignore all attacks out of fear and ignorance.
Farewell.
raven1
>I was looking for somebody who HAD read these people, actually
>understood what they were saying, rather than what some guy in a pub
>told you they were saying, and had thought about the issues. I was
>looking for an educated, intelligent, committed atheist who could
>interract on a friendly non-abusive level and talk through the
>implications of post modern pragmatism to thier firmly held beliefs.
What "firmly held beliefs" are you referring to?
>
>I found none. I can only assume that the fierceness of belief needed to
>be a committed atheist results in people just as closed minded as they
>accuse theists of being.
Or perhaps, we're perceptive enough to recognize that post-modernism
is of (limited) use in literary and/or historical analysis, and
generally worthless otherwise. Especially as regards fields like
science and mathematics; post-modernism is no more applicable to them
than, say, String theory is to literature
However much you may wish to argue otherwise, may I just say that I
hope you and I never have to drive over a bridge designed by a
post-modernist engineer...
David
>
> > You're confusing issues: We just don't think that *post modern
philosophy*
> > has any validity. Because it's stupid, and is simply an excuse to claim
that
> > no idea is any better than any other. Intellectual cowardice at its
best. I
> > guess that's why you refuse to justify your position: you can't.
>
> Is that why you fear post modernism? Becauggests that there is no single
> arbiter between ideas. Particularly that science cannot arbitrate
> between ideas because it is one of those ideas.
>
Fear? no. I *disdain* it. You know why? Because, much like Descartes
postulate that we can doubt Logic and Mathematics because God could be
decieving us, it has no intellectual or philosophical merit. It's a stupid
fucking idea created by people wishing to rationalize.
> This scares people (religious and atheist), because they want to have
> some reason to say "I know this". But in the end, we don't even have
> reason to say with absolute certainty that "I know you exist". We work
> on pragmatism - I believe it because it works.
Where did I ever claim absolute knowledge? Post-modernism has very little
application value, before it renders itself meaningless. Quit while you're
ahead.
>
> I said fear, because the violent reaction I have had from people (abuse,
> etc) has shown fear of the new more than anything else. A naturl huiman
> response, not, however, a good attitude for "science.
>
> Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
> modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
> all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
> particular.
Actually, since I've read virtually no post-modern philosophy, I was taking
*your* word for what it was about.
>
> I was looking for somebody who HAD read these people, actually
> understood what they were saying, rather than what some guy in a pub
> told you they were saying, and had thought about the issues. I was
> looking for an educated, intelligent, committed atheist who could
> interract on a friendly non-abusive level and talk through the
> implications of post modern pragmatism to thier firmly held beliefs.
Firmly held beliefs?!?
Anyhow, you want an educated, intelligent, committed atheist who can
interact on a friendly, non-abusive level? Then don't insult our
intelligence by posting crap by a bunch of physically mature children, who
feel a compulsive need to rationalize their beliefs to "prove" that no one
can prove that their ideas are superior.
>
> I found none. I can only assume that the fierceness of belief needed to
> be a committed atheist results in people just as closed minded as they
> accuse theists of being.
... whatever you say. At this point, I'm ceasing to care if you think I'm
closed minded. Know why? You can't seem to do any better than the job you
did of telling what post-modernists are all about. When I listened to that
and recognized that you were talking about idiots, you told me not to listen
to what someone in a pub told me. Well, I have a lot of readings to do in
the near future. Put up or shut up. Either tell me what post-modernists are
*really* about, or accept that I don't find *any* merit in the
post-modernist arguments, as you understand them.
>
> I pity you, that you do not read people who challenge the way you think,
> and you refuse to recognise that the paradigms that you are enslaved to
> are just that - paradigms - not universal truth systems.
What was that about post-modernism? Oh, that's right, if you're a
post-modernist then you *can't* say you know that any better than we do, you
just seem to have had experiences leading you to different conclusions. Or
are you going to be a hypocrite?
>
> I will moniter this thread for about a week, then I will unsubscribe,
> and shake the dust off my sandals. If anyone wants to actually discuss
> the issue that I raised out of interest, that I will respond, I will,
> from now on, ignore all attacks out of fear and ignorance.
...and I would care why? I'd give you a proverbial penny for your thoughs,
but from this subject, you haven't demonstrated that I wouldn't be getting
ripped off. Either give some evidence, or explanation, which shows that this
idea has enough merit to even discuss hypothetically, and I'll be happy to
do some postpone some other readings to do some studying on the subject, and
get back to you. If you can't do that, I don't see a reason to waste my
time. I have plenty of other studying to do.
Like for philosophy class on monday...
Ted King
wrote:
Why is it that any person coming from any society (and is considered
normally functioning by their society) can be brought to one place and
they all agree there is water at that place? Is that because there is a
coincidence of paradigms that they agree there is water at that place or
is it because there *is* water at that place?
Ted
Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:15:46 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>
>> You're confusing issues: We just don't think that *post modern philosophy*
>> has any validity. Because it's stupid, and is simply an excuse to claim that
>> no idea is any better than any other. Intellectual cowardice at its best. I
>> guess that's why you refuse to justify your position: you can't.
>
>Is that why you fear post modernism? Becauggests that there is no single
>arbiter between ideas. Particularly that science cannot arbitrate
>between ideas because it is one of those ideas.
>
>This scares people (religious and atheist), because they want to have
>some reason to say "I know this". But in the end, we don't even have
>reason to say with absolute certainty that "I know you exist". We work
>on pragmatism - I believe it because it works.
Why do you lie? It "scares" nobody - it infuriates them when they try
to talk from shared understanding but the pomo isists that all ideas
are equal therefore his own unevidenced ones are more equal than
everybody else's.
>I said fear, because the violent reaction I have had from people (abuse,
>etc) has shown fear of the new more than anything else. A naturl huiman
>response, not, however, a good attitude for "science.
A paranoid falsehood. If you had any intellectual integrity wou would
understand what it takes to hold any kind of two-way discussion, and
that lying about the natural human reaction to such dishonesty is
hardly "fear".
>Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
>modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
>all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
>particular.
Most of what we know is from the behaviour of pomos here. It would be
utterly irrelevent if they had the intelligence to keep it to
themselves.
>I was looking for somebody who HAD read these people, actually
>understood what they were saying, rather than what some guy in a pub
>told you they were saying, and had thought about the issues. I was
>looking for an educated, intelligent, committed atheist who could
>interract on a friendly non-abusive level and talk through the
>implications of post modern pragmatism to thier firmly held beliefs.
That takes two. Perhaps if you listened to what people told you
instead of dismissing it and lying about "why they say it", you might
have got the kind of response you wanted - assuming that you weren't
trolling for the responses you got.
>I found none. I can only assume that the fierceness of belief needed to
>be a committed atheist results in people just as closed minded as they
>accuse theists of being.
Why do you continue to lie? There is no "atheist belief", let alone
"fierceness of belief" outside your paranoid imagination. We're simply
people who aren't any kind of theist. And why hide behind the last
refuge of the brainwashed fundamentalist? The lie about our being
closed-minded simply because your premises don't apply outside your
own belief system and have to be justified to mutual satisafaction,
which you are unable to do
Like most of the brainwashed, you
>I pity you, that you do not read people who challenge the way you think,
>and you refuse to recognise that the paradigms that you are enslaved to
>are just that - paradigms - not universal truth systems.
I don't pity you - I have plenty of contempt for you though, because
you come here and lie about us, to us.
>I will moniter this thread for about a week, then I will unsubscribe,
>and shake the dust off my sandals. If anyone wants to actually discuss
>the issue that I raised out of interest, that I will respond, I will,
>from now on, ignore all attacks out of fear and ignorance.
Hypocrite.
>Farewell.
raven1
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:15:46 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>>Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
>>modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
>>all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
>>particular.
>
>Most of what we know is from the behaviour of pomos here. It would be
>utterly irrelevent if they had the intelligence to keep it to
>themselves.
>
If they were that intelligent, they wouldn't be post-modernists.
Ted King
> On 5 Nov 2002 06:47:15 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>
> >D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dc563b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>
> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:49:32 GMT, Ted King <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >> >As I was reading up on postmodernism I ran into this quote by Zizek:
> >> >"Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire--insofar
> >> >as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but
> >> >results from the place it occupies in the structure--we must, by
> >> >structural necessity, fall prey to the illusion that the power of
> >> >fascination belongs to the object as such."
>
> >> mmm.... structural necessity. Postmodernists are quite fond of
> >> applying the term necessity to adjectives like 'historical'
> >> 'structural' and the like. Generally, the relations they wish to
> >> express are more subtle than that.
>
> (...)
>
> >The alacrity and acumen of your critique of Zizek made for an
> >interesting and cogent read. You provided me with a context for
> >understanding Zizek's quote in a way quite different from the one
> >presented in the article I read where I found the quote.
>
> I should write more booze-inspired rants!
I would consider myself to be fortunate if I were able to say anything
in a sober state as well as you do in an (slightly?) inebriated one.
>
> Anyway, was the article by any chance online?
Here it is:
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/dia/26.1er_baudrillard.html#authbio
I would like to point out that the author is such a fine rhetorician,
with an considerable grasp of many nuanced concepts and a grand
vocabulary, that I seriously doubt I understood much of what he was
saying - IOW, it was over my head in many respects.
>
> >> Back to our scheduled program:
>
> >> If I got it right, what Zizek is saying is that when I experience a
> >> desire for a certain thing, my perception is such that this desire is
> >> caused by some kind of fascination emanated from the object?
>
> >This is what I took him to be saying: that we come to feel that the
> >value of an object is intrinsic to the object, but that is an illusion
> >caused by the structure of our internal environment. I'm not sure if I
> >misread him and/or projected too much of my own meaning onto what he
> >wrote (ironically).
>
> >> I don't know if the human brain necessarily functions that way,
> >> furthermore, it is not always an illusion, many things have evolved
> >> means to stimulate arousal in the observer (fermones in humans, scent
> >> in fruit, perfumes, etcetera).
>
> >I see what you mean: his use of "fascination" in this context does
> >seem odd/vague. Perhaps I really did project too much by construing
> >that as "value".
>
> Well, I like your projection. If it is such, I mean, I haven't read
> the context of the quote. But through your interpretation Zizek is
> saying something a bit more profound and I think we should take that
> as a basis.
On rereading the context, I don't think I understood it correctly. I
am very interested in your take.
>
> >> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
> >> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
> >> humans veil it.
>
> >I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
>
> Luckily, I am, but it's difficult to explain. If we go by your
> analysis, what Zizek describing is how we are deluded into thinking
> that our subjective perception is objective. If we were not to have
> such delusions our perception would not be any less filtered through
> personal tastes/attitudes/ideas, only we would recognize that it is.
I think that could very well be what he was saying. Except if you read
the article the author refers to the notion of a "kernel of reality".
I'm not sure what to make of that.
>
> Does this render our perception objective? Interesting question. I
> assumed the negative in the above part you were not quite sure about,
> but it's open to discussion.
I think as the filters relate to social reality I can most easily see
how difficult it is to be confident that a systemic perspective is
likely to be objective, but when it comes to simple observation of
physical reality I find it harder to dismiss the kind of rigorously
tested and repeatable observations of science as being necessarily as
subjective as any other human perception. And I have this intuition
that explanatory scientific theories are somewhere "between" what I
think are often objective observations of simple physical realities
and the probably largely subjective perceptions of social valuation.
Well, I'm partial to Alan Watts, but I'm sure the way he expresses
himself doesn't "do it" for many people. Here's a sample:
http://www.deoxy.org/w_nature.htm
"It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash!
And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And
as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer
and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was
a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I,
sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way
out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns
on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as
being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you
define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on
the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time.
Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a
complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel
that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define
yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if
there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a
result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet
on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big
bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you
are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr
so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so--I see every one of you as the
primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular
way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as
separate from it."
> Anyway, what I meant to say was that our sensory apparatus and brain
> are already part of a certain manner of relating to existence and
> therefor cannot be separated from the reality we experience. Managing
> to rid your perception of the categories you have been learned to see
> doesn't mean you see through a different set of eyes.
>
Okay, yep. But the experience doesn't seem to be the same.
> >> Perhaps it may be possible for one to reach a state of mind in which
> >> the designations and theories that we have formulated are eliminated
> >> from perception, these are after all acquired. As far as I have
> >> understood the clear picture of hardware/software doesn't apply to our
> >> brains, the processes carried out do alter the material structure, so
> >> I do have my doubts about that possibility.
>
> >I see what you mean. But maybe the edifice of perceptual models is an
> >subjective/intersubjective ornamentation on a fundamental flow of
> >experience via neural activity that remains essentially as it was when
> >we were born with almost no sense of separateness and objectness.
> >Maybe we can sometimes through training or accident "tap into" that
> >kind of non-modeled perception that has been with us since the
> >beginning. I wonder if much creative inspiration for art and new
> >scientific perspectives comes from "wandering into" that personal
> >primeval realm.
>
> Possible. Changes in perception can be summoned by other means as
> well, though. Drugs come to mind.
Part of my job is to teach middle school kids about drugs and their
deleterious effects, so that's a topic I need to be careful about in a
public forum. Oh, by the way, do you know what beer does to your body?
:)
>
> >> But it doesn't really matter here, perception in such a case is not
> >> pure reflection of reality as it really is, just as the hawk, who does
> >> not have all these social constructions of reality bothering him, does
> >> not form a pure reflection of reality when he flies between the trees.
>
> >> The only pure reflection can be in a mindless mirror, we are not
> >> mindless mirrors forming passive reflections, nor are we to be such.
> >> Like the hawk, we are animals interacting with existence and our
> >> standards for truth are to be in accordance to our requirements in
> >> this interaction.
>
> >Wow! I like the analogy/metaphor. But the "...standards for truth are
> >to be in accordeance to our requirements in this interaction." has me
> >perplexed. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure of
> >what implications of this are. Does this mean that those who strive to
> >"objectify" science are going to only be able to achieve the broadest
> >human intersubjective perspective at best?
>
> I don't think intersubjective is the way to put it. The
> intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is virtual.
Once again, that is something I don't quite follow. Could you explain
what you mean by "intersubjective"? Maybe I have the wrong idea. And
then how is it that the intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is
virtual?
We could all
> go through the same steps and then we'd perceive the same results.
> Leadryl is IMO right on this topic, although I think (s)he carries the
> consequences too far.
>
How so?
> I don't know why people would want to (further) objectify science. The
> only effort I can think were attempts to impose a nomological model
> where it doesn't belong or is highly problematic, i.e. in history,
> anthropology, sociology, economy, etcetera.
>
> These projects could not completely succeed because the concepts used
> to conjure up lawlikeness were not exact enough and examined well
> enough. This may change when some of the missing links between
> physics, chemistry, biology and eventually sociology/psychology are
> filled in, as I've heard people who know more about these things than
> me predict.
>
I think I understand what you mean in relation to how these kinds
(anthropological, sociological, economic, etc.) of things happen; but
just to be clear, I've pretty much thought it isn't within the purview
of science to make claims about what "ought" to be.
> >I'm not sure I can
> >completely concur with this human-relative limitation of "truth".
>
> Hey, we won't be human forever.
>
> Anyway, you're right to question my writing on this topic, it is
> muddled nonsense. What I meant to say was that we shouldn't idealize a
> passive reflection (as in naive realism) but recognise and embrace the
> fact that we have and require an interpretation reality, for it to be
> meaningful. What's a truth if you can't make sense of it and do
> anything with it?
Yeah, there does seem to be a fundamental pragmatism to our existence.
What is, is; but we make of it what we do.
>
> But ways of acting and forms of meaning can take on many different
> shapes, so what on earth are these requirements for our interaction I
> was talking about? They run the gamut and I certainly wouldn't fix any
> either, so how could they serve as a limitative criterium? I wasn't
> critical and careful enough there. Quality vs. reply time, or was it
> just the beer?
There was a good chance I wouldn't notice the difference, so why
not...
:)
Ted
Leadryl
Possibly both. I never once denied absolute reality. None of the authors
that I have quoted have denied absolute reality. It is a myth that post
modern philosophy denies absolute reality. It just denies that we can
DESCRIBE absolute reality.
Leadryl
I do not lie when I say that the first to use abuse in this debate were
modernist atheists. Are you going to challenge that?
Leadryl
Yes, and seven hundred yaers ago, a person spouting Descarte's paradigm
of doubt would have been called unintelligent. The innovators are always
ridiculed, then sanctfied in retrospect.
Ted King
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "observation". When you say
science begins with observation are you meaning that science begins
with a description of reality? I thought you were saying what we
perceive with our senses is dependent on the paradigms we learn that
filter our experiences. I am not comfortable with the latter claim as
a blanket statement. I think science begins with what we perceive with
our senses and that is what observation is. Yes, the filters we learn
from our culture can and often does effect our direct sensory
perceptions. But I think with some care we can account for those
influences on our direct sensory perceptions. Filter the filters. Of
course to think we can do that does depend on making some assumptions
- that there is a physical reality that induces our sensory
perceptions and there are regular patterns to the reality that are
observable and that those regular patterns will continue in the future
as they have in the past. It is possible that these assumptions are
false. For example, reality could be solipsist or "Matrix" like and
manipulated at whim by some unseen power. Even if we choose to "trust"
our sensory perceptions I would, never-the-less, agree that it is also
a necessary component of science that our observations as sensory
perceptions be communicated to others and that can lead to some
problems because language and other forms of symbolic communication
are limited. But I think the methodologies of science are specifically
set up to minimize those problems and that is why it is so successful.
I think where postmodernist critique of science is most applicable is
with reference to scientific theories as explanations for why we have
the sensory observations we do. (By "theory", I'm not talking about
mathematical models themselves which could be construed as practical
tools, though mathematical models are often essential elements of
theories.) If by DESCRIBE reality you are referring to scientific
theories as explanations, then I would agree that theories are
paradigmatic and *may* have subjective elements that may not be true
of reality. But I wouldn't go so far as to deny that a particular
theory *must* have such elements that are not true of reality. Nor
would I assume that a theory doesn't have such elements; but that is
how scientists view theories - as contingent views of reality.
Falsifiability and all that.
Ted
raven1
Depends on what you mean by "abuse". If you mean "abuse of language"
or "abuse of the label of 'philosophy'", then post-modernism has us
beat...
raven1
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:48:03 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
>> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:15:46 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
>>>>modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
>>>>all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
>>>>particular.
>>>
>>>Most of what we know is from the behaviour of pomos here. It would be
>>>utterly irrelevent if they had the intelligence to keep it to
>>>themselves.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If they were that intelligent, they wouldn't be post-modernists.
>
>Yes, and seven hundred yaers ago, a person spouting Descarte's paradigm
>of doubt
"Descartes's paradigm of doubt"? What, exactly, might you be referring
to...?
> would have been called unintelligent. The innovators are always
>ridiculed, then sanctfied in retrospect.
I'm reminded of the quote: "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at
Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown".
Leadryl
How about sign and object? Language and thought are signs of objects
that are "out there". Without denying the object, we can challenge
whether the sign really corresponds to the object, or whether it is
capable of doing so. Would you agree that the sign is paradigmically
influenced, so it is more about how we experience the object, and how we
interpret that experience, than "facts about the object"?
This is one of the critiques of observation, that it is inherantly about
signs. The second is what you observed, we COULD be in the Matrix (there
is no spoon). We cannot PROVE otherwise, we can't even INDICATE
otherwise. We simply have faith that we are not.
(Off topic) Your point about regular patterns is an interesting one. If
science relies on a world of regular patterns, then what happens if
non-repeatable events occur? The big bang is one example. A human's
personal decision based on loves, fears, experiences and desires is
another. What can science do to address these events? Or does it
recognise that it is limited, and can only address repeating events?
Leadryl
No, I just mean simple calling-the-other-person-stupid abuse.
The kind that people resort to when they don't have another valid response.
I note that you avoided the question...
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:15:46 +1100, Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>Is that why you fear post modernism? Becauggests that there is no single
>>>arbiter between ideas. Particularly that science cannot arbitrate
>>>between ideas because it is one of those ideas.
Lie number 1: nobody "fears" mostmodernism.
Lie number 2: Science "arbitrates" between "ideas" by the degree with
which they match reality.
>>>This scares people (religious and atheist), because they want to have
>>>some reason to say "I know this". But in the end, we don't even have
>>>reason to say with absolute certainty that "I know you exist". We work
>>>on pragmatism - I believe it because it works.
Lie number 3: that it "scares" people. Post modernism is simply an
irrelance to anybody except those "philosophers" who prefer to argue
rather than looking at the real world.
>> Why do you lie? It "scares" nobody - it infuriates them when they try
>> to talk from shared understanding but the pomo insists that all ideas
>> are equal therefore his own unevidenced ones are more equal than
>> everybody else's.
>>
>>>I said fear, because the violent reaction I have had from people (abuse,
>>>etc) has shown fear of the new more than anything else. A naturl huiman
>>>response, not, however, a good attitude for "science.
Lie number 4: a similar lie to the fundies who generally act like
idiots and pretend the negative reaction to their annoyance is "a
violent reaction to new ideas".
>> A paranoid falsehood. If you had any intellectual integrity wou would
>> understand what it takes to hold any kind of two-way discussion, and
>> that lying about the natural human reaction to such dishonesty is
>> hardly "fear".
>>
>>>Your attitude also shows that you have not actually read much post
>>>modern philosophy, and are mostly going on what somebody told you it was
>>>all about. You have not read Rorty and you have not read Kuhn, in
>>>particular.
>>
>> Most of what we know is from the behaviour of pomos here. It would be
>> utterly irrelevent if they had the intelligence to keep it to
>> themselves.
[snip]
Christopher A. Lee
Or the loony in Monty Python (Michael Palin AFAIR) who said "They
laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Newton, why won't they laugh at
me?"
raven1
As I haven't been personally abusing anyone, what's your point?
Jeff Young
How do you define "repeating events"? ;-) (Isn't repetition itself
inherently a 100% interpreted phenomenon? (Likewise with
similarity/identity?))
Jeff
Steve Snyder
> ...
> Science cannot
> address the issue of God because it does not streatch it's scope wide
> enough.
> ...
What "issue of God"?? There is none.
The idea that it is necessarily true that an ad hoc hypothetically invisible
God entity, imagined to be the creator, the first cause, might in reality
exist, despite the dearth of evidence of any such thing, because there is no
proof that the theory is false, was neatly embalmed and given a proper
Christian burial long ago by Bertrand Russell :
---
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world as God." -- Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
---
Rooster
"Ted King" <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d8c6e9e.02111...@posting.google.com...
> ... reality could be solipsist or "Matrix" like and
> manipulated at whim by some unseen power. ...
"Unseen power" in your theory is in the nature of ad hoc hypothesis.
---
An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one's theory.
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
---
Is there any way of reaching a conclusion that your theory is true, other
than via creating an ad hoc hypothesis, and arguing _ad ignorantium_ that
there is no proof that solipsism is false?
Christopher A. Lee
<2098sn...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>Leadryl <fl...@southon.com> wrote in message
>news:<3DC8A480...@southon.com>...
>
>
>> ...
>> Science cannot
>> address the issue of God because it does not streatch it's scope wide
>> enough.
>> ...
>
>What "issue of God"?? There is none.
Exactly.
I've never understood why the religious (and a few others) seem to
think that because it's so real to them, and so important, that
everybody else has to see it in the same light. Or that the merest
mention of it is enough to make ewverybody else see it in the theist's
terms.
Ted King
wrote:
> Ted King wrote:
> > Leadryl <fl...@southon.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3DD09B44...@southon.net>...
> >
> >>Ted King wrote:
[snip]
First I think I need to understand what you mean by "thought". If I see
a flash of light is the "seeing" a thought? Or is the "thought" the bit
where I think in internal dialogue terms "That was a flash of light."?
Just what is a thought?
I think that science, because of its methodology, is good at minimizing
the influence of paradigms when it comes to observation; especially when
it comes to measurement, which is a fundamental type of observation in
science. Plunge a thing into a container full to the brim with water and
capture all the water that overflows. "Milliliter" or "cubic inch" are
"signs" that's true, but that the amount of water captured is closely
approximate to the capacity of the object is a fact that is not
contingent on the unit signs of measure - given the assumption that
there is a reality "out there" and that reality is regular. I don't
think measurement has to be inherently about signs but can be about the
way things are - assuming there is a reality out there and that reality
is regular.
>
> This is one of the critiques of observation, that it is inherantly about
> signs. The second is what you observed, we COULD be in the Matrix (there
> is no spoon). We cannot PROVE otherwise, we can't even INDICATE
> otherwise. We simply have faith that we are not.
Don't forget solipsism. I cannot prove or even indicate that the state
of affairs is otherwise than solipsistic. And yes, it is a nonrational
belief to believe that there is a reality out there and it is regular.
But it would also be nonrational to believe that the reality I
experience is not as it appears to be at the most immediate sensory
perception level. Rationality has to start with some presumptions. What
is rational under one set of presumptions would not be rational under a
different set of presumptions. If someone presumes that there is not a
reality out there and/or that it is regular, there is not much rational
discussion I can have with them since I *don't* presume there is not a
reality out there that is regular. If someone does presume there is a
reality out there that is regular then we can proceed to ask what is
rational with respect to this regular reality (presumed to out there).
>
> (Off topic) Your point about regular patterns is an interesting one. If
> science relies on a world of regular patterns, then what happens if
> non-repeatable events occur? The big bang is one example. A human's
> personal decision based on loves, fears, experiences and desires is
> another. What can science do to address these events? Or does it
> recognise that it is limited, and can only address repeating events?
>
In one sense it is possible every event is unique because there may
never be an exact confluence of parameters for any event exactly the
same way again. So the regular patterns are about "like" things. Science
is often about making inductive inferences assuming a regular pattern
amongst like things. If energy/stuff "follows" a regular pattern that
can be effectively modeled with mathematics then we can use the
mathematical model to infer what energy/stuff will be like under
conditions we cannot directly observe.
Ted
DJ Nozem
>D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dce088b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>> On 5 Nov 2002 06:47:15 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>> >D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dc563b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:49:32 GMT, Ted King <lod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >As I was reading up on postmodernism I ran into this quote by Zizek:
>> >> >"Although any object can function as the object-cause of desire--insofar
>> >> >as the power of fascination it exerts is not its immediate property but
>> >> >results from the place it occupies in the structure--we must, by
>> >> >structural necessity, fall prey to the illusion that the power of
>> >> >fascination belongs to the object as such."
>> >> mmm.... structural necessity. Postmodernists are quite fond of
>> >> applying the term necessity to adjectives like 'historical'
>> >> 'structural' and the like. Generally, the relations they wish to
>> >> express are more subtle than that.
>> >The alacrity and acumen of your critique of Zizek made for an
>> >interesting and cogent read. You provided me with a context for
>> >understanding Zizek's quote in a way quite different from the one
>> >presented in the article I read where I found the quote.
>> I should write more booze-inspired rants!
>I would consider myself to be fortunate if I were able to say anything
>in a sober state as well as you do in an (slightly?) inebriated one.
Slightly, yes.
>> Anyway, was the article by any chance online?
>Here it is:
>http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/dia/26.1er_baudrillard.html#authbio
Heh.
I agree with Davidson that philosophers shouldn't be timid about
transgressing the boundaries of the topics science thinks are hers,
but whereas being bold is one thing, being blind is another.
Random nonsense from the above article:
"Artificial intelligence is devoid of intelligence because it is
devoid of artifice. True artifice is the artifice of the body in the
throes of passion; but since all machines are celibate, they do not
suffer that ironical surplus"
Umm..., right. Passions are the true artifice, suurre. And I'm sure
Baudrillard has a very good argument as to why we could not instill
some sin in the body electric, or whatever it is he would be talking
about.
The remainder of Baudrillard's work, as discussed in the article,
consists of similar tripe, some plain falsehoods and a few platitudes.
( Evil will always remain! I re-watched Excalibur friday and thought
it a (quite entertaining) masculine fantasy. Little did I know it was
a philosophical masterpiece pre-empting the great Baudrillard!)
The one point Baudrillard seems to have to make, if we go by the
limited discussion of his work in the article, is the assimilation of
'others' (HIS terminology) by the...... what? Global Flattening? Which
is part of the general postmodern condition??
My dear me, at least Marcuse could name his enemies clearly:
"The music of the soul is also the music of the cash-desk. The
exchange-value, not the truth-value is important. That is the
rationality of the status quo and all opposing rationality is
converted to it. (My translation from a Dutch version of
'One-Dimensional Man')
So as you see, the ideas aren't new, they are only applied in a new
(not as clearly stated) context and with some new decorum.
As a side-note, ironic examples of Marcuse's truth exist aplenty, see
the recent 'bestsellers' by Naomi Klein and Noreena Hertz, for
instance. Perfectly marketable women!
The work of Lyotard that is discussed is more reasonable, but he isn't
really saying much that is new either and he misunderstands the nature
of information. He also appears to be a bit of an essentialist about
our human nature and I do not see how the restriction of vision to a
human sphere would be a strictly feminine concern.
We will turn to Zizek below.
>I would like to point out that the author is such a fine rhetorician,
>with an considerable grasp of many nuanced concepts and a grand
>vocabulary, that I seriously doubt I understood much of what he was
>saying - IOW, it was over my head in many respects.
If most of it was actually over your head, it is probably because
you're not familiar with the discourse, which goes for me as well,
partially. Learning to use it is a boring matter of know-how. In the
mean time, the deal is to gather the gist of the article. If you
cannot find it, you shouldn't rule out the possibility that there are
actually no clear points made by the author at all. Clear points may
be passé in the postmodern sensibility at any rate.
>> >> Back to our scheduled program:
>> >> If I got it right, what Zizek is saying is that when I experience a
>> >> desire for a certain thing, my perception is such that this desire is
>> >> caused by some kind of fascination emanated from the object?
>> >This is what I took him to be saying: that we come to feel that the
>> >value of an object is intrinsic to the object, but that is an illusion
>> >caused by the structure of our internal environment. I'm not sure if I
>> >misread him and/or projected too much of my own meaning onto what he
>> >wrote (ironically).
>> >> I don't know if the human brain necessarily functions that way,
>> >> furthermore, it is not always an illusion, many things have evolved
>> >> means to stimulate arousal in the observer (fermones in humans, scent
>> >> in fruit, perfumes, etcetera).
>> >I see what you mean: his use of "fascination" in this context does
>> >seem odd/vague. Perhaps I really did project too much by construing
>> >that as "value".
>> Well, I like your projection. If it is such, I mean, I haven't read
>> the context of the quote. But through your interpretation Zizek is
>> saying something a bit more profound and I think we should take that
>> as a basis.
>On rereading the context, I don't think I understood it correctly. I
>am very interested in your take.
As to what Zizek really means? It seems to be more about the focus of
attention, as I originally stated. We feel that our attention for the
object is attracted by it. This is somehow necessary for the
maintenance of our social constructs (don't ask).
>> >> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
>> >> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
>> >> humans veil it.
>> >I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
>> Luckily, I am, but it's difficult to explain. If we go by your
>> analysis, what Zizek describing is how we are deluded into thinking
>> that our subjective perception is objective. If we were not to have
>> such delusions our perception would not be any less filtered through
>> personal tastes/attitudes/ideas, only we would recognize that it is.
>I think that could very well be what he was saying. Except if you read
>the article the author refers to the notion of a "kernel of reality".
>I'm not sure what to make of that.
Kernel of the real. The real is a concept from Lacanian psychobabble
which is distinct from reality. The real is a fantastic construct made
in a philosophy which has paradox and irony as first principles, in
which it the 'real' is akin to the 'other'. It is made to give
constructionists and postmodernists an illusion of freedom in the
prison of language and the totality of social construction they would
normally feel trapped in.
What I want to say is, don't fret if you don't understand it from a
perspective that attempts to reason within Lacan's writing.
>> Does this render our perception objective? Interesting question. I
>> assumed the negative in the above part you were not quite sure about,
>> but it's open to discussion.
>I think as the filters relate to social reality I can most easily see
>how difficult it is to be confident that a systemic perspective is
>likely to be objective, but when it comes to simple observation of
>physical reality I find it harder to dismiss the kind of rigorously
>tested and repeatable observations of science as being necessarily as
>subjective as any other human perception. And I have this intuition
>that explanatory scientific theories are somewhere "between" what I
>think are often objective observations of simple physical realities
>and the probably largely subjective perceptions of social valuation.
The scientists do conclude an extensive training, which includes
acquiring particular manner of vision before commencing with
'repeatable observations'. We return to this at the bottom.
(...)
>> >> >Reality experienced without the filter of subjective symbolic reality.
>> >> "The beginnings and endings of this world, for which words were
>> >> conceived solely to speak of. Now remove these words and what
>> >> remains?"
>> >> - The models we have of existence are not strictly personal, they are
>> >> more intersubjective.
>> >> - We cannot erect an impenetrable wall between the human being's
>> >> senses and brain on the one hand and the constructions of reality we
>> >> make on the other hand.
>> >That is the heart of the matter for me with respect to "satori"! I
>> >have had fleeting moments of "separateness" melting away - it is
>> >difficult to describe with discrete symbol units of language, but -
>> >where I was sort of simply experiencing the continuous wholeness of
>> >reality. In a sense "I-ness" was "set-aside"; though that's not really
>> >it either - it's as though I-ness merged with otherness to be just
>> >isness (but that doesn't seem to be the right words either).
>> You feel a sort of oneness with all of existence, right? Sounds nice,
>> I might try it once. Any recommendations? ( books, videos, courses,
>> whatever )
>Well, I'm partial to Alan Watts, but I'm sure the way he expresses
>himself doesn't "do it" for many people. Here's a sample:
>http://www.deoxy.org/w_nature.htm
That's one hell of a read after waddling through all that postmodern
mumbo-jumbo. I don't agree with every word he says in the articles you
linked to, but the piece you quoted is more or less what I believe.
Now to see it...
(snip)
>> >> Perhaps it may be possible for one to reach a state of mind in which
>> >> the designations and theories that we have formulated are eliminated
>> >> from perception, these are after all acquired. As far as I have
>> >> understood the clear picture of hardware/software doesn't apply to our
>> >> brains, the processes carried out do alter the material structure, so
>> >> I do have my doubts about that possibility.
>> >I see what you mean. But maybe the edifice of perceptual models is an
>> >subjective/intersubjective ornamentation on a fundamental flow of
>> >experience via neural activity that remains essentially as it was when
>> >we were born with almost no sense of separateness and objectness.
>> >Maybe we can sometimes through training or accident "tap into" that
>> >kind of non-modeled perception that has been with us since the
>> >beginning. I wonder if much creative inspiration for art and new
>> >scientific perspectives comes from "wandering into" that personal
>> >primeval realm.
>> Possible. Changes in perception can be summoned by other means as
>> well, though. Drugs come to mind.
>Part of my job is to teach middle school kids about drugs and their
>deleterious effects, so that's a topic I need to be careful about in a
>public forum. Oh, by the way, do you know what beer does to your body?
> :)
<grin>
Nothing wine won't.
>> >> But it doesn't really matter here, perception in such a case is not
>> >> pure reflection of reality as it really is, just as the hawk, who does
>> >> not have all these social constructions of reality bothering him, does
>> >> not form a pure reflection of reality when he flies between the trees.
>> >> The only pure reflection can be in a mindless mirror, we are not
>> >> mindless mirrors forming passive reflections, nor are we to be such.
>> >> Like the hawk, we are animals interacting with existence and our
>> >> standards for truth are to be in accordance to our requirements in
>> >> this interaction.
>> >Wow! I like the analogy/metaphor. But the "...standards for truth are
>> >to be in accordeance to our requirements in this interaction." has me
>> >perplexed. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure of
>> >what implications of this are. Does this mean that those who strive to
>> >"objectify" science are going to only be able to achieve the broadest
>> >human intersubjective perspective at best?
>> I don't think intersubjective is the way to put it. The
>> intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is virtual.
>Once again, that is something I don't quite follow. Could you explain
>what you mean by "intersubjective"? Maybe I have the wrong idea. And
>then how is it that the intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is
>virtual?
The bulk of the scientific experiments out there are beyond my ability
to control. I don't understand the entities tested and I can't read
the charts on which the results are mapped. I rely on popularisers and
journalists to tell me what happened and how it is significant and
even this explanation is sometimes beyond me.
And the vast majority of the people in the world, even in the western
world, is far more scientifically illiterate than I am. They cannot
see the same results if they watch a test, the results don't mean
anything to them. They must first train their vision and learn to
interpret the data that is produced.
> We could all
>> go through the same steps and then we'd perceive the same results.
>> Leadryl is IMO right on this topic, although I think (s)he carries the
>> consequences too far.
>How so?
Leadryl seems to think that this affects science's claim to an
'epistemically privileged status'. Perhaps it does in terms of its
short-term reliability, we could expect that less forgery and such
would take place in laboratories if we could all review the results.
But apart from that, it doesn't touch upon the legitimacy of science
itself, IMO.
>> I don't know why people would want to (further) objectify science. The
>> only effort I can think were attempts to impose a nomological model
>> where it doesn't belong or is highly problematic, i.e. in history,
>> anthropology, sociology, economy, etcetera.
>> These projects could not completely succeed because the concepts used
>> to conjure up lawlikeness were not exact enough and examined well
>> enough. This may change when some of the missing links between
>> physics, chemistry, biology and eventually sociology/psychology are
>> filled in, as I've heard people who know more about these things than
>> me predict.
>I think I understand what you mean in relation to how these kinds
>(anthropological, sociological, economic, etc.) of things happen; but
>just to be clear, I've pretty much thought it isn't within the purview
>of science to make claims about what "ought" to be.
You are right there, of course. But these softer sciences do take on
the task of explaining what is, only they can't do it in the same way
or with the same accuracy of the natural and the deductive sciences.
(snip)
>> But ways of acting and forms of meaning can take on many different
>> shapes, so what on earth are these requirements for our interaction I
>> was talking about? They run the gamut and I certainly wouldn't fix any
>> either, so how could they serve as a limitative criterium? I wasn't
>> critical and careful enough there. Quality vs. reply time, or was it
>> just the beer?
>There was a good chance I wouldn't notice the difference, so why
>not...
I am not writing only to convince or impress you :-)
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
na...@quicknet.nl
Ted King
> On 10 Nov 2002 21:12:52 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>
> >D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dce088b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>
> >> On 5 Nov 2002 06:47:15 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Heh.
>
> I agree with Davidson that philosophers shouldn't be timid about
> transgressing the boundaries of the topics science thinks are hers,
> but whereas being bold is one thing, being blind is another.
>
> Random nonsense from the above article:
>
> "Artificial intelligence is devoid of intelligence because it is
> devoid of artifice. True artifice is the artifice of the body in the
> throes of passion; but since all machines are celibate, they do not
> suffer that ironical surplus"
>
> Umm..., right. Passions are the true artifice, suurre. And I'm sure
> Baudrillard has a very good argument as to why we could not instill
> some sin in the body electric, or whatever it is he would be talking
> about.
>
> The remainder of Baudrillard's work, as discussed in the article,
> consists of similar tripe, some plain falsehoods and a few platitudes.
>
> ( Evil will always remain! I re-watched Excalibur friday and thought
> it a (quite entertaining) masculine fantasy. Little did I know it was
> a philosophical masterpiece pre-empting the great Baudrillard!)
>
<g>
> The one point Baudrillard seems to have to make, if we go by the
> limited discussion of his work in the article, is the assimilation of
> 'others' (HIS terminology) by the...... what? Global Flattening? Which
> is part of the general postmodern condition??
>
> My dear me, at least Marcuse could name his enemies clearly:
>
> "The music of the soul is also the music of the cash-desk. The
> exchange-value, not the truth-value is important. That is the
> rationality of the status quo and all opposing rationality is
> converted to it. (My translation from a Dutch version of
> 'One-Dimensional Man')
>
> So as you see, the ideas aren't new, they are only applied in a new
> (not as clearly stated) context and with some new decorum.
>
> As a side-note, ironic examples of Marcuse's truth exist aplenty, see
> the recent 'bestsellers' by Naomi Klein and Noreena Hertz, for
> instance. Perfectly marketable women!
I'd like to say something worthwhile or ask an engaging question about
what you wrote above, but nothing actually worthwhile comes to mind. I
do want you to know I did read and think about what you wrote - it
sent me on a very fascinating exploration of Marcuse.
>
> The work of Lyotard that is discussed is more reasonable, but he isn't
> really saying much that is new either and he misunderstands the nature
> of information. He also appears to be a bit of an essentialist about
> our human nature and I do not see how the restriction of vision to a
> human sphere would be a strictly feminine concern.
>
> We will turn to Zizek below.
>
> >I would like to point out that the author is such a fine rhetorician,
> >with an considerable grasp of many nuanced concepts and a grand
> >vocabulary, that I seriously doubt I understood much of what he was
> >saying - IOW, it was over my head in many respects.
>
> If most of it was actually over your head, it is probably because
> you're not familiar with the discourse,
Yes and yes.
which goes for me as well,
> partially. Learning to use it is a boring matter of know-how. In the
> mean time, the deal is to gather the gist of the article. If you
> cannot find it, you shouldn't rule out the possibility that there are
> actually no clear points made by the author at all. Clear points may
> be passé in the postmodern sensibility at any rate.
I'm somewhat accustomed to finding the gist of articles written by
PhD's in education - which often seems like a matter of filtering out
the inflated academic mode of expression to find nuggets of common
sense most good teachers already understand. Unfortunately, those
nuggets seem, too often, to get taken to an impractical extreme, but
have a gloss of scholarly profundity that gives them an appearance of
credibility they often don't merit (IHMO). It sounds like you may be
suggesting something similar about much of the writings of
postmodernists.
Ask what? ;)
>
> >> >> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
> >> >> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
> >> >> humans veil it.
>
> >> >I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
>
> >> Luckily, I am, but it's difficult to explain. If we go by your
> >> analysis, what Zizek describing is how we are deluded into thinking
> >> that our subjective perception is objective. If we were not to have
> >> such delusions our perception would not be any less filtered through
> >> personal tastes/attitudes/ideas, only we would recognize that it is.
>
> >I think that could very well be what he was saying. Except if you read
> >the article the author refers to the notion of a "kernel of reality".
> >I'm not sure what to make of that.
>
> Kernel of the real. The real is a concept from Lacanian psychobabble
> which is distinct from reality. The real is a fantastic construct made
> in a philosophy which has paradox and irony as first principles, in
> which it the 'real' is akin to the 'other'. It is made to give
> constructionists and postmodernists an illusion of freedom in the
> prison of language and the totality of social construction they would
> normally feel trapped in.
Oh.
>
> What I want to say is, don't fret if you don't understand it from a
> perspective that attempts to reason within Lacan's writing.
Okay. Sounds good to me. I'm inclined to trust your judgement about
it, though I intend to do some more reading about it.
Me neither, but a lot of it makes sense to me.
in the articles you
> linked to, but the piece you quoted is more or less what I believe.
> Now to see it...
Or not see the "other" things... :)
[snip]
>
> >> I don't think intersubjective is the way to put it. The
> >> intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is virtual.
>
> >Once again, that is something I don't quite follow. Could you explain
> >what you mean by "intersubjective"? Maybe I have the wrong idea. And
> >then how is it that the intersubjectivity that science accomplishes is
> >virtual?
>
> The bulk of the scientific experiments out there are beyond my ability
> to control. I don't understand the entities tested and I can't read
> the charts on which the results are mapped. I rely on popularisers and
> journalists to tell me what happened and how it is significant and
> even this explanation is sometimes beyond me.
Okay.
>
> And the vast majority of the people in the world, even in the western
> world, is far more scientifically illiterate than I am. They cannot
> see the same results if they watch a test, the results don't mean
> anything to them. They must first train their vision and learn to
> interpret the data that is produced.
>
> > We could all
> >> go through the same steps and then we'd perceive the same results.
> >> Leadryl is IMO right on this topic, although I think (s)he carries the
> >> consequences too far.
>
> >How so?
>
> Leadryl seems to think that this affects science's claim to an
> 'epistemically privileged status'. Perhaps it does in terms of its
> short-term reliability, we could expect that less forgery and such
> would take place in laboratories if we could all review the results.
> But apart from that, it doesn't touch upon the legitimacy of science
> itself, IMO.
Okay.
>
> >> I don't know why people would want to (further) objectify science. The
> >> only effort I can think were attempts to impose a nomological model
> >> where it doesn't belong or is highly problematic, i.e. in history,
> >> anthropology, sociology, economy, etcetera.
>
> >> These projects could not completely succeed because the concepts used
> >> to conjure up lawlikeness were not exact enough and examined well
> >> enough. This may change when some of the missing links between
> >> physics, chemistry, biology and eventually sociology/psychology are
> >> filled in, as I've heard people who know more about these things than
> >> me predict.
>
> >I think I understand what you mean in relation to how these kinds
> >(anthropological, sociological, economic, etc.) of things happen; but
> >just to be clear, I've pretty much thought it isn't within the purview
> >of science to make claims about what "ought" to be.
>
> You are right there, of course. But these softer sciences do take on
> the task of explaining what is, only they can't do it in the same way
> or with the same accuracy of the natural and the deductive sciences.
>
Maybe it is a misconception on my part but it seems to me that often
the analyzers of those softer sciences tend to blur the distinction
between an elucidation of notions of what is and how it might be that
it comes to pass and value judgements about what ought to be.
> (snip)
>
> >> But ways of acting and forms of meaning can take on many different
> >> shapes, so what on earth are these requirements for our interaction I
> >> was talking about? They run the gamut and I certainly wouldn't fix any
> >> either, so how could they serve as a limitative criterium? I wasn't
> >> critical and careful enough there. Quality vs. reply time, or was it
> >> just the beer?
>
> >There was a good chance I wouldn't notice the difference, so why
> >not...
>
> I am not writing only to convince or impress you :-)
Well, then I hope you aren't too disconcerted by having impressed me
very much and that I do find myself often convinced by what you have
to say, though hopefully not too uncritically so.
Ted
DJ Nozem
>D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dd79e5f...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>> On 10 Nov 2002 21:12:52 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
>> >D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3dce088b...@news.quicknet.nl>...
>> >> On 5 Nov 2002 06:47:15 -0800, lod...@yahoo.com (Ted King) wrote:
(snip)
>> The one point Baudrillard seems to have to make, if we go by the
>> limited discussion of his work in the article, is the assimilation of
>> 'others' (HIS terminology) by the...... what? Global Flattening? Which
>> is part of the general postmodern condition??
>>
>> My dear me, at least Marcuse could name his enemies clearly:
>>
>> "The music of the soul is also the music of the cash-desk. The
>> exchange-value, not the truth-value is important. That is the
>> rationality of the status quo and all opposing rationality is
>> converted to it. (My translation from a Dutch version of
>> 'One-Dimensional Man')
>> So as you see, the ideas aren't new, they are only applied in a new
>> (not as clearly stated) context and with some new decorum.
>
>> As a side-note, ironic examples of Marcuse's truth exist aplenty, see
>> the recent 'bestsellers' by Naomi Klein and Noreena Hertz, for
>> instance. Perfectly marketable women!
>I'd like to say something worthwhile or ask an engaging question about
>what you wrote above, but nothing actually worthwhile comes to mind. I
>do want you to know I did read and think about what you wrote - it
>sent me on a very fascinating exploration of Marcuse.
That's good. I don't necessarily agree with what Marcuse says of
things, but I think his opinion and that of his fellow Frankfurters is
worth taking into account.
>Yes and yes.
Yes. Not all though. What I've read of Foucault was perfectly
understandable (to me) and quite interesting as well, although I
disagree with much of it. In the philosophy of science some
sociologists of the 'strong' (or 'science in action') project have
written very interesting articles, for instance Latour on Pasteur and
Shapin & Schaffer on Boyle and the birth of modern science. Others,
like David Bloor, do write little more than falsehoods and convoluted
nonsense.
(snip)
>> >> >> The quote you gave also doesn't seem to me to be a kind of description
>> >> >> of human subjectivity, but rather of the psychology thereof, of how
>> >> >> humans veil it.
>> >> >I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
>> >> Luckily, I am, but it's difficult to explain. If we go by your
>> >> analysis, what Zizek describing is how we are deluded into thinking
>> >> that our subjective perception is objective. If we were not to have
>> >> such delusions our perception would not be any less filtered through
>> >> personal tastes/attitudes/ideas, only we would recognize that it is.
>> >I think that could very well be what he was saying. Except if you read
>> >the article the author refers to the notion of a "kernel of reality".
>> >I'm not sure what to make of that.
>> Kernel of the real. The real is a concept from Lacanian psychobabble
>> which is distinct from reality. The real is a fantastic construct made
>> in a philosophy which has paradox and irony as first principles, in
>> which it the 'real' is akin to the 'other'. It is made to give
>> constructionists and postmodernists an illusion of freedom in the
>> prison of language and the totality of social construction they would
>> normally feel trapped in.
>Oh.
>> What I want to say is, don't fret if you don't understand it from a
>> perspective that attempts to reason within Lacan's writing.
>Okay. Sounds good to me. I'm inclined to trust your judgement about
>it, though I intend to do some more reading about it.
Good. The concept doesn't make sense to me, so until someone manages
to make me see its sense within the Lacanian philosophy, I'll remain
tentatively of the position that there is no sense to it. This is a
personal choice and I am not well-read in this field of philosophy, so
I can't tell it to you as an authoritative view, but you should at
least give serious consideration to the possibility.
(snip)
>> >> I don't know why people would want to (further) objectify science. The
>> >> only effort I can think were attempts to impose a nomological model
>> >> where it doesn't belong or is highly problematic, i.e. in history,
>> >> anthropology, sociology, economy, etcetera.
>> >> These projects could not completely succeed because the concepts used
>> >> to conjure up lawlikeness were not exact enough and examined well
>> >> enough. This may change when some of the missing links between
>> >> physics, chemistry, biology and eventually sociology/psychology are
>> >> filled in, as I've heard people who know more about these things than
>> >> me predict.
>> >I think I understand what you mean in relation to how these kinds
>> >(anthropological, sociological, economic, etc.) of things happen; but
>> >just to be clear, I've pretty much thought it isn't within the purview
>> >of science to make claims about what "ought" to be.
>> You are right there, of course. But these softer sciences do take on
>> the task of explaining what is, only they can't do it in the same way
>> or with the same accuracy of the natural and the deductive sciences.
>Maybe it is a misconception on my part but it seems to me that often
>the analyzers of those softer sciences tend to blur the distinction
>between an elucidation of notions of what is and how it might be that
>it comes to pass and value judgements about what ought to be.
There is an element of truth to this. Much of economy, for instance is
mingled with politics and policy-advice. At the same time the
distinction between facts and values may be harder to make in these
fields to begin with. But the pretensions, certainly of those who
wanted to objectify these sciences, were to give factual descriptions
of the world.
>> >> But ways of acting and forms of meaning can take on many different
>> >> shapes, so what on earth are these requirements for our interaction I
>> >> was talking about? They run the gamut and I certainly wouldn't fix any
>> >> either, so how could they serve as a limitative criterium? I wasn't
>> >> critical and careful enough there. Quality vs. reply time, or was it
>> >> just the beer?
>> >There was a good chance I wouldn't notice the difference, so why
>> >not...
>> I am not writing only to convince or impress you :-)
>Well, then I hope you aren't too disconcerted by having impressed me
>very much and that I do find myself often convinced by what you have
>to say, though hopefully not too uncritically so.
Of course not :-) (on both counts)
What I wanted to say was that I'm learning here as well and that is
also something I'm writing for.
Ted King
this, but it isn't showing up on Google. If it didn't "go through",
I'll not repeat everything other than to say "thank you" again for the
benefit of your thoughts.
Ted
D...@slowbitchmail.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in message news:<3ddfb4ab...@news.quicknet.nl>...
DJ Nozem
> I'm just posting this to say I am fairly sure I posted a response to
> this, but it isn't showing up on Google.
It hasn't shown up on my server either. Then again, it is going a bit
slow today, this message didn't show up either.
>If it didn't "go through",
> I'll not repeat everything other than to say "thank you" again for the
> benefit of your thoughts.
You're welcome (as always) and I thank you for your invaluable
feedback.
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem AA#1465