scb school of postmodernism
Zunaid Kazi
Mohammad Harunuzzaman <mhar...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Organization: The Ohio State University
>
> [Deleted]
>
> I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
> and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
> (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
> of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
> are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
> physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
> forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
> [deleted]
>
Scientific knowledge *is* inherently differentiable from "narrative
knowledge", true only within a temporal framework. Scientific knowledge
must be verifiable by its own rules. Goedel's incompleteness theorem
inherently brings about a legitimization problem to initial axioms.
A scientific idea is valid as long as evidence exists for it and no
evidence exists against it. No idea is safe, and any violation removes
the body of knowledge from our realm.
po-mo no-mo:
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zunaid Kazi ka...@asel.udel.edu (or @cis or @strauss)
CompSci & Robotics http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/
ASEL http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/bangladesh/
Mohammad Harunuzzaman
My two cents worth on the subject. Let me first say that I am a former
physicist (I no longer do physics) and had some exposure to post modernism.
I claim no expertise in post-modernism and do not particularly admire this
particular view of the world. I hope my comments will contribute toward
a better understanding of po-mo.
1. Post-modernism is both a movement and an interpretative tool
2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method. What is common among
these views of the world is a general explanation of reality. Po-mo
rejects all general explanations and upholds the plurality of explanations.
By its acceptance of plurality of explanations, po-mo does accept the
validity of the body of knowledge achieved through the above models
(religion, Marxism, science) of reality but rejects their grand
generalizations.
3. As one can guess from 2, po-mo rejects structure and organization in
knowledge and views knowledge as "free form."
4. Consistent with 3, po-mo rejects hierarchical structures, both in
knowledge and social organization. Hence, Soumitra's frequent reference
to "sub-altern classes" and "parasite classes" is consistent with po-mo
rejection of hierarchical social organizations. Po-mo provides a good
philosophical platform for neo-socialists.
In article <4elqlp$2...@news.bu.edu>,
Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4e8r39$b...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
>: writes:
>
>: >
>: >My views on philosophy related to science is somewhat similar to say
>: >Hawking's (as in the two popular books he wrote). In that respect it
>: is
>: >certainly not unprecedented among physicists. I have never found
>: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
>: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
>
I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
(which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
>: >
>: >Did you mean experimental?
>: Experential.Do you mean to say you never heard of the faculty of
>: experential knowledge??? This is getting too far ....,I think I am
>
Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
>: >
>: Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
>: world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>: within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
>
>Kono matha mundu nei. Aktaa real life theke udahoron din na.
>
A better way of putting it would be that there are areas of comprehension
where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
>
>: >let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
>: >
>: Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
>: realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
>: to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
>: heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.Reality very much
>: depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
>: turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
>
>Whatever name you call a desk, it smells as sweet.
>
I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
I think better examples of "mental constructs" are emotive or intuitive
realizations that do not follow the methods of any of the "grand narratives"
rejected by po-mo. To pick a physics example, when Max Planck intuitively
realized that energy radiation might be quantized, it was a "mental
construct." When the mental construct was verified by the scientific method,
it became a scientific law. The important point is Max Planck did not arrive
at the initial intuition through some structured process of reasoning. This
particular one happened to be verifiable by the scientific method. Other
such intuitions may not be "verifiable" in the conventional scientific
sense, and may still belong legitimately in the body of human knowledge.
>
>Indranil.
>
>
I may have made mistakes in representing po-mo, and all criticism on
that ground is welcome. Also, as mentioned, I do not subscribe to po-mo.
So, feel free to criticize po-mo itself.
M. Harun uz Zaman
The Ohio State University
Dasgupta
raised by Indranil is to be found in :
Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis.
- Richard Bernstein.
Please note that almost all the major philosophers of science were scientists,
and in particular, physicists. Example, Popper and Kuhn.
Whether they were at least as competent as Physicists as they were philosophers
can be commented on by someone from the field of Physics, like, say, Indranil
Dasgupta.
Regards,
Shoumyo.
Indranil DasGupta
: Organization: The Ohio State University
: My two cents worth on the subject. Let me first say that I am a former
: physicist (I no longer do physics) and had some exposure to post modernism.
: I claim no expertise in post-modernism and do not particularly admire this
: particular view of the world. I hope my comments will contribute toward
: a better understanding of po-mo.
: 1. Post-modernism is both a movement and an interpretative tool
: 2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
: in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
: Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method. What is common among
: these views of the world is a general explanation of reality. Po-mo
: rejects all general explanations and upholds the plurality of explanations.
: By its acceptance of plurality of explanations, po-mo does accept the
: validity of the body of knowledge achieved through the above models
: (religion, Marxism, science) of reality but rejects their grand
: generalizations.
In science we might be able to measure the mass of one (or a handful)
top quarks. We generalise and say all top quarks have the same
mass. This fits into theories that have passed a large number of
tests. So the underlying assummption, that all top quarks are the same
lets one deal with only a finite number of them, collect statistics, and
measure the mass (with due attention paid to measurement and statistical
errors).
What part of the above process is rejected by po-mos? And on what
grounds?
[..]
: >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
: >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
: >
: I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
: and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
: (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
: of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
: are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
: physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
: forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of the
laws of the state.
: Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
: kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
My interest in the discussion stems from purely the connection with the
scientific method and science.
: where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
: of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
We may not use logic when we do a lot of things. But scientists have
never claimed that we do! You may find a particular piece of art
wonderful. To me it may be distasteful. Obviously the process of looking
at and appreciating art is not a well defined or rigid one. Indeed the
same person may have different reactions to the same object of art at
two different times.
However the apparent disagreement of our opinions on a piece of art can
itself be understood purely scientifically and logically. For instance
one may be able to show that I do not like love poems because the
occurence of certain words/phrases releases strong sleep inducing agents
in my brain that makes me lose concentration.
Science does not claim to being able to distinguish between good or bad
art. Or tell you what is ethical and what is not. To critcise the
scientific method by saying that their are other ways of thinking that
we use in art appreciation or theology is meaningless.
: I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
: The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
: is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
: However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
: the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
There may be some fields of science that are useful in dealing with
mental constructs (psychology, for instance). But a scientific
understanding always entails collecting and interpreting data in the
same way as in the case of desks. The physical world is made of
desk-like things.
: I think better examples of "mental constructs" are emotive or intuitive
: realizations that do not follow the methods of any of the "grand narratives"
: rejected by po-mo. To pick a physics example, when Max Planck intuitively
: realized that energy radiation might be quantized, it was a "mental
: construct." When the mental construct was verified by the scientific method,
: it became a scientific law. The important point is Max Planck did not arrive
: at the initial intuition through some structured process of reasoning. This
: particular one happened to be verifiable by the scientific method. Other
: such intuitions may not be "verifiable" in the conventional scientific
: sense, and may still belong legitimately in the body of human knowledge.
I disagree. Planck's formula was tailor made to fit experiments. It was
only examination of that formula that which gave people the idea of the
quantum. Call it intuition or whatever. But there was rational thinking
in it.
Indranil.
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>: 2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
>: in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
>: Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method.
True. Lyotard's famous definition of postmodernism was "incredulity towards
meta-narrative".
-Sayan.
Indranil DasGupta
: Please note that almost all the major philosophers of science were scientists,
: and in particular, physicists. Example, Popper and Kuhn.
: Whether they were at least as competent as Physicists as they were philosophers
: can be commented on by someone from the field of Physics, like, say, Indranil
: Dasgupta.
I am not aware of the extent of these gentlemen's work. That does not
say much since only a small part of the physics publications of today
will be widely read 25 years from now.
Indranil.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
Very poor allusion .Quarks are "particles" and are assumed to be all
alike .Humans are not , no two humans are same and thus any philosophy
(if we call it a science of life) can not extrapolate like a machine.
>
>[..]
>
>: >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
>: >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
>: >
>
>: I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific
knowledge
>: and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of
Mahabharata
>: (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent
a form
>: of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific
protocol. You
>: are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in
understanding
>: physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with
complementary
>: forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
>That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
>history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of
the
>laws of the state.
>
And then such a physicist is not expected to debate a philosophical
debates when he does not intend to know .
No one (not at least the post-modernists) are "criticising"(again a
binary of hating/loving) the "scientific" methods , they are sumbitting
for thought that logical methodology may not be the sole way of gaining
knowledge and wisdom.
Jagdish Bisa
Indranil DasGupta emerges:
I think you've got the finger on it. Thanks for this excellent question that
I was struggling to put forth. The problem lies in the above definition#2
of post-modernism. As far as what I (I've read just a little bit Lyotard,
Foucault and Derrida) know and understood about post-modernism, what's
rejected by post-modernism is the "dominance" of any single grand-narrative
rather than the grand-narrative itself. This is precisely why I'd asked
you to trash the FAQ from alt.post-modernism. It's a big mistake to label
po-mo's as anti-science. I hope this will answer the question.
> [..]
>
> : >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
> : >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
> : >
>
> : I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific
> : knowledge and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of
> : Mahabharata (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do
> : represent a form of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a
> : scientific protocol. You are right when you say that the Mahabharata is
> : not helpful in understanding physics. The reverse is also true. But we
> : are dealing with complementary forms of knowledge or even independent
> : fields of knowledge.
>
> That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
> history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of the
> laws of the state.
Everyone believes that the knowledge gathered via their own favourite
phylosophy is "enough." It seems to be true, in general, or else all the
bad guys would have been "dead" by now. Though there are incidents of "ethnic
cleansing" and religious conversions, they aren't effective enough to achieve
universal domination of any sigle phylosophy.
Post-modernism is the phenomenon of those people who have to deal with "all"
of these phylosophies on a "daily" basis. By rejecting the "dominance" of
any single phylosophy (because there isn't one) but living with knowledge
gathered via "atleast one" of the phylosophies, a post-moderninst tries to
live a decent and meaningful life under the chaotic post-modern conditions.
> : Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
> : kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
>
> My interest in the discussion stems from purely the connection with the
> scientific method and science.
>
> : where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
> : of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
>
> We may not use logic when we do a lot of things. But scientists have
> never claimed that we do! You may find a particular piece of art
> wonderful. To me it may be distasteful. Obviously the process of looking
> at and appreciating art is not a well defined or rigid one. Indeed the
> same person may have different reactions to the same object of art at
> two different times.
>
> However the apparent disagreement of our opinions on a piece of art can
> itself be understood purely scientifically and logically. For instance
> one may be able to show that I do not like love poems because the
> occurence of certain words/phrases releases strong sleep inducing agents
> in my brain that makes me lose concentration.
>
> Science does not claim to being able to distinguish between good or bad
> art. Or tell you what is ethical and what is not. To critcise the
> scientific method by saying that their are other ways of thinking that
> we use in art appreciation or theology is meaningless.
Agreed 100%.
> : I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
> : The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
> : is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
> : However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
> : the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
>
> There may be some fields of science that are useful in dealing with
> mental constructs (psychology, for instance). But a scientific
> understanding always entails collecting and interpreting data in the
> same way as in the case of desks. The physical world is made of
> desk-like things.
It's true that desk "appears" the same to everyone. It's doubtful, however,
that two people may find it's usage the same, though physically it appeared
the same to both of them. The concept of "desk" is a mental construct in
that regard.
-Jagdish (time to return to usual programming!) Bisa
> Indranil.