A Typology of Scientism
Garamond Lethe
guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
kinds here.
<q>
[1] Epistemic scienticists ... maintain that only scientific
methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
[2] Rational scienticists ... argue that, since science cannot
say anything about an Ultimate Reality or soul, Ultimate
Reality or soul do not exist.
[3] Ontological scienticists, assert that only those phenomena,
processes and events exist which the natural sciences, by way
of their methods, are able to depict.
[4] Axiological scienticists mean that all human education should
be based on science because all other educational methods are
insufficient and unsatisfactory.
[5] Value-theoretical scientism means that the natural sciences
can exhaustively explain all ethical issues and should replace
classical ethics.
[6] Existential scientism is related to value-theoretical scientism
but concerns all religions and worldviews. Hence, the natural
sciences should replace religion.
</q>
Anne L.C. Runehov, ‘Review of Chaos, Complexity, and God:
Divine Action and Scientism,’ Ars Disputandi
[http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 6 (2006).
Desertphile
<cartogr...@liamg.com> wrote:
> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> kinds here.
Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Garamond Lethe
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
><cartogr...@liamg.com> wrote:
>
>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> kinds here.
>
> Bullshit detected:
?
> reading terminated.
>
>
Gary Bohn
He's taking you seriously and missed the quote.
Garamond Lethe
Well, it was a serious post. I'm afraid that despite labeling the
thread "Scientism" and pointing out the spelling (one who follows
Scientism is --- confusinglly --- labeled at "scientiCIST", his
reading was too hasty and he read "science" and "scientist",
respectively.
ScientISM is a system of thought that elevates science to either
the level of religion or worse. snex does this, and I found it
interesting that five out of the six categories could be found in
his posts (as I remember reading them).
I'll make a point of using capitals next time.
snex
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> > kinds here.
>
> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
them can come up with consistent statements.
and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
science. how sad and pathetic.
Garamond Lethe
> On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> > kinds here.
>>
>> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> other reliable systems of knowledge out there,
Indeed I do.
> but he cant tell us
> what they are
I think I covered this earlier today.
There's history, aesthetics, and ethics for starters.
> or how they are supposed to work,
My undergrad degree is in Theater Dramaturgy with an emphasis in
philosophy and political science. It's been a few years, but I
supposed I could give you the high points of Beckermanian textual
criticism, perhaps contrasting it with Aristotle's _Poetics_.
Do you have a copy of Aristotle handy?
> or why nobody who uses
> them can come up with consistent statements.
The results are pretty consistent. Shakespeare, Ibsen and Chekhov
are the three greats, O'Neill and Williams are the best America
has managed so far, and Shaw is consistently better than you
remembered.
Having actually done a scientific study of Shakespeare (in the
form of a statistical analysis of vocabulary in _Richard III_),
I can say that a scientific approach to criticism is a limited
tool at best and often worse than useless.
> and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
> science.
Well, nearly two.
You?
> how sad and pathetic.
Gary Bohn
He's reacting to the claim that scientism actually exists beyond the
world of creationist fantasy. I too question that claim.
Who would attempt to lower science to the level of religion? The faith
base of religion is not the same as the trust formed through interaction
with the physical world. We don't accept the physical world simply
because we've been told to, we experience it, and in doing so we gain
confidence that our experiences are replicable and common. Since science
has been extremely successful at describing, explaining and predicting
our shared experience, trusting in its results even in areas outside our
immediate experience is sensible and expedient.
Before you go labelling snex as a scienticist based on those 6
categories, make sure those categories are more than just self serving
straw man arguments of the quoted author. All sorts of categories can be
made up.
Robert Camp
For what it's worth I find his posts to be remarkably bullshit free. I
can't speak for others but I'm guessing there are plenty here who
would agree.
You have not sought my advice, but I feel compelled to ask - are you
sure you wish to travel down this road (one akin to that taken by some
of the loonier denizens of this group), wherein obvious reality is
denied in favor of sustaining a grudge? Wouldn't it be a whole lot
simpler just to leave that garbage behind and move on?
RLC
Garamond Lethe
As did I, until snex showed up. He's the only actual example I know of.
> Who would attempt to lower science to the level of religion?
snex doesn't claim that science is the best or most reliable method of
perceiving reality, he claims it's the only way. Thus:
[1] Epistemic scientiCists ... maintain that only scientific
methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
> The faith
> base of religion is not the same as the trust formed through interaction
> with the physical world.
Absolutely. And snex's faith leads me to think that he's not a scientist
(and hasn't taken any university science classes, for that matter). He
doesn't base his faith on the real world (although he likes to think that
he does).
> We don't accept the physical world simply
> because we've been told to, we experience it, and in doing so we gain
> confidence that our experiences are replicable and common. Since science
> has been extremely successful at describing, explaining and predicting
> our shared experience, trusting in its results even in areas outside our
> immediate experience is sensible and expedient.
>
No arguement here. snex would disagree, I think (there's no sense of
limiting science to what is sensible and expedient).
> Before you go labelling snex as a scienticist based on those 6
> categories, make sure those categories are more than just self serving
> straw man arguments of the quoted author. All sorts of categories can be
> made up.
The book reviewed was based on the author's Ph.D. dissertation, and his
adviser is well-known in the field. Dissertations are rarely turned into books
unless they are of high quality. The review from which I took the quote
came from a peer-reviewed journal. The reviewer took no issue with the
categories given.
If that's insufficient due dilligence, then I'll be happy to stand corrected
if you can point to the relevant literature where the categories are disputed
(or even where a different taxonomy is presented).
Vend
> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> >> > kinds here.
>
> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there,
>
> Indeed I do.
>
> > but he cant tell us
> > what they are
>
> I think I covered this earlier today.
>
> There's history, aesthetics, and ethics for starters.
I think that history is science (or it should be).
Aestethics and ethics are subjective: what is considered beautiful or
morally right tends to change from one society to another.
Rolf
> On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>>> kinds here.
>>
>> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
> what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
> them can come up with consistent statements.
>
So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
insight and knowledge?
> and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
> science. how sad and pathetic.
I am afraid I don't follow you; I have not noticed any tendency towards
pretentiousness by Garamond; as far as I can tell he has shown an exemplary
ability to stay on topic and leave invectives against opponents out of the
debate. Besides, as far as I can tell he's got every right to consider
himself a scientist and to be accepted as such.
Garamond Lethe
> On Jul 24, 7:07 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> >> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> >> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> >> > kinds here.
>>
>> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>>
>> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
>> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there,
>>
>> Indeed I do.
>>
>> > but he cant tell us
>> > what they are
>>
>> I think I covered this earlier today.
>>
>> There's history, aesthetics, and ethics for starters.
>
> I think that history is science (or it should be).
If you phrase your questions carefully, you can definitely take a scientific
approach to history where you hypothesize, measure, repeat.
The difficulty is that so much of what we consider to be interesting history
is one-offs. Taking an example from Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_,
there was only one Sire de Coucy, and constructing the story (or history) of
his life from a string of unique facts is valid history, but not valid science.
(A more scientific approach would be Tuchman's _March of Folly_ where she
begins with a hypothesis of the causes of war and then supports that
hypothesis with data. I'm not sure I'd call that science, but I would have
no trouble calling it scientific.)
> Aestethics and ethics are subjective: what is considered beautiful or
> morally right tends to change from one society to another.
I think you may be underestimating the role subjectivity (and aestethics)
plays in science and overestimating the role of subjectivity in aestethics.
But I've now been in the lab for 19 hours and I need to be back in 5, so
I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for the moment.
Burkhard
Is that necessary and sufficient to mark the demarcation? Scientific
knowledge after all also changes. and we could at least
hypothetically imagine a scenario where ethical or aesthetic norms are
extremely stable and agreed, but we would nevertheless feel that it is
an "artificial" stability that is not the same as the one we expect
from the sciences.
Making these distinctions precise frequently turns out more difficult
than one initially imagines. History is a god example in point. We
definitely have "historical knowledge" which shares features with
scientific knowledge, but only I would say to a point. Lakatos (whose
work I otherwise very much like) always wanted to extend scientific
methodology to the historical sciences, and was right derided for it
by working historians: If you want to study the 30 years war, you do
not start by learning everything that is to be known about wars in
general, and then, almost as an afterthought, apply it to that
conflict. rather, you learn as much as you can about THAT event, maybe
in the margins, if at all, informed by your knowledge about other
similar conflicts.
And even if aesthetics and ethics are not science, I woudl say we very
clearly have aesthetic and ethical "knowledge" - the latter prevents
you from getting into trouble with the law or your fellow citizens,
e.g., and both can be to some extend taught, acquired, improved,
discussed and agreed upon. (I woudl say for insatnce that by now, my
appreciation ("taste knowledge "_) of Whisky has markedly improved
and is more refined than it was when i migrated to Scotland,
Self knowledge is another example of non scientific knowledge i would
say.
So rather than having rigid demarcation, it seems to me we have more
groupings by family resemblance which describe different ways which
things can be known. The conceptual scheme Garamond cites is then a
sort of complementary scheme to that which shows the different ways in
which borders between these groups can be transgressed.
Burkhard
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:10:58 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:42:33 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
> >>>><cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >>>>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >>>>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> >>>>> kinds here.
>
> >>>> Bullshit detected:
>
> >>> ?
>
> >>>> reading terminated.
>
> >> He's taking you seriously and missed the quote.
>
> > Well, it was a serious post. I'm afraid that despite labeling the
> > thread "Scientism" and pointing out the spelling (one who follows
> > Scientism is --- confusinglly --- labeled at "scientiCIST", his reading
> > was too hasty and he read "science" and "scientist", respectively.
>
> > ScientISM is a system of thought that elevates science to either the
> > level of religion or worse. snex does this, and I found it interesting
> > that five out of the six categories could be found in his posts (as I
> > remember reading them).
>
> > I'll make a point of using capitals next time.
>
> He's reacting to the claim that scientism actually exists beyond the
> world of creationist fantasy. I too question that claim.
>
> Who would attempt to lower science to the level of religion?
Historically, the most blatant example was of course the "Religion of
Reason" during the French revolution. I'd say if you trawl through the
epistemological literature through the ages, you find often very bad
stuff (mostly by philosophers of science rather than scientists, or by
scientists who in their twighlight years retrain as philosophers)
along these lines. It seems to ebb and flow - whenever there are
really significant scientific breakthroughs, some philosophical
hangers on will come up an interpretation that overeggs the scientific
claims to a universal interpretation of life, the universe and te
rest. look out for statements of the form: we now know everything
that is to know...
I haven't read the book of which Garamond cites only the review, but
it seems to contain some in depth analysis of such historical
examples.
Also note that none of the definitions of scientism implies hostility
towards religion, which in my view in one reason why I found them
quite interesting. Science struck religious authors are captured just
as much. In that sense, Descarte's attempt to physically locate the
soul, not do do away with religion but to prove it, or Penrose attempt
to locate the organ responsible for free will, could all be understood
as scientism. Indeed, ID (if you take it at face value and not as
intentional deception) would be a prime example example of scientism.
Scientism is a temptation for both science and religion, and I thought
coming up with a classificatory scheme (suitable substantiated with
historical examples in the book) is a quite helpful approach to detect
early warning signs - especially as it also indicates that scientism
need not come in the crude and blatant version described by
creationists (I'd agree with you that _that_ is largely a straw man)
but can take more subtle but nonetheless problematic forms.
The Vatican I'd say got it absolutely right in this respect; ID, to
the extend that it tries to be science is bad science, to the extend
that it tries to be theology is bad theology.
Frank J
> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> kinds here.
Aha! "Scienticists." I was wondering what you call one who follows the
religion of scientism, given that "scientists" was already taken.
Anyway, that brings up the question "Does a religion even exist if it
has no followers?" The reason I ask, is that I heve never heard anyone
ever speak of "scientism" other than to reject it. But it also brings
up the double standard of many self-proclaimed Christians (all
fundamentalists, surprise, surprise) who insist that *they* have the
right to label themselves as Christians but those who disagree with
them (on matters always centering around evolution, surprise,
surprise) do not. Who has the right to call anyone a "scienticist" if
no one calls themselves that?
>
> <q>
> [1] Epistemic scienticists ... maintain that only scientific
> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
>
> [2] Rational scienticists ... argue that, since science cannot
> say anything about an Ultimate Reality or soul, Ultimate
> Reality or soul do not exist.
>
> [3] Ontological scienticists, assert that only those phenomena,
> processes and events exist which the natural sciences, by way
> of their methods, are able to depict.
>
> [4] Axiological scienticists mean that all human education should
> be based on science because all other educational methods are
> insufficient and unsatisfactory.
I'm not far from that because I think that every subject should have
some component of science. For example, a Bible study class should
discuss whether Genesis really did occur as stated, and *when*. IOW
there should be a *critical analysis* of it. A real one, not the phony
one that the DI demands for evolution - but not for Bible study, of
course.
TomS
<51bf6268-d6bd-4b41...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Jul 23, 9:14=A0pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> existed outside of thought experiments. =A0You really do meet all
>> kinds here.
>
>Aha! "Scienticists." I was wondering what you call one who follows the
>religion of scientism, given that "scientists" was already taken.
>
>Anyway, that brings up the question "Does a religion even exist if it
>has no followers?" The reason I ask, is that I heve never heard anyone
>ever speak of "scientism" other than to reject it. But it also brings
>up the double standard of many self-proclaimed Christians (all
>fundamentalists, surprise, surprise) who insist that *they* have the
>right to label themselves as Christians but those who disagree with
>them (on matters always centering around evolution, surprise,
>surprise) do not. Who has the right to call anyone a "scienticist" if
>no one calls themselves that?
Did any people call themselves "social darwinists"?
>
>>
>> <q>
>> [1] Epistemic scienticists ... =A0maintain that only scientific
>> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
>>
>> [2] Rational scienticists ... argue that, since science cannot
>> say anything about an Ultimate Reality or soul, Ultimate
>> Reality or soul do not exist.
>>
>> [3] Ontological scienticists, assert that only those phenomena,
>> processes and events exist which the natural sciences, by way
>> of their methods, are able to depict.
>>
>> [4] Axiological scienticists mean that all human education should
>> be based on science because all other educational methods are
>> insufficient and unsatisfactory.
>
>I'm not far from that because I think that every subject should have
>some component of science. For example, a Bible study class should
>discuss whether Genesis really did occur as stated, and *when*. IOW
>there should be a *critical analysis* of it. A real one, not the phony
>one that the DI demands for evolution - but not for Bible study, of
>course.
>
>>
>> [5] Value-theoretical scientism means that the natural sciences
>> can exhaustively explain all ethical issues and should replace
>> classical ethics.
>>
>> [6] Existential scientism is related to value-theoretical scientism
>> but concerns all religions and worldviews. Hence, the natural
>> sciences should replace religion.
>> </q>
>>
>> Anne L.C. Runehov, =91Review of Chaos, Complexity, and God:
>> Divine Action and Scientism,=92 Ars Disputandi
>> [http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 6 (2006).
>
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Frank J
I too struggle with the concept of "other ways of knowing" because I
know of none that work remotely similarly to science. But if I may
take a break from the seriousness (& no win) tone of this thread, a
word popped into my head that I thought of many years ago.
Unfortunatelty it too is already taken, even though very rarely used,
so I can't use it for the definition I have in mind.
That word is "advertism." If the word were available it would fit
perfectly as the religion that people follow when they are hell-bent
on selling you something. The only goal is to separate you from your
money (perferably via automatic monthly deductions that are almost
impossible to cancel), though the currency is not always money, and
can be more abstract like mind control (in which case money usually
follows anyway). In "advertism" "facts" are usually half-truths, and
occasionally outright lies. The seller may or may not believe them
personally, but the point is not that but to get the "buyer" to
believe them. Creationism/ID is clearly a subset of "advertism."
Burkhard
> "On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:16:19 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 23, 9:14=A0pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >> guess which one). =A0I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >> existed outside of thought experiments. =A0You really do meet all
> >> kinds here.
>
> >Aha! "Scienticists." I was wondering what you call one who follows the
> >religion of scientism, given that "scientists" was already taken.
>
> >Anyway, that brings up the question "Does a religion even exist if it
> >has no followers?" The reason I ask, is that I heve never heard anyone
> >ever speak of "scientism" other than to reject it. But it also brings
> >up the double standard of many self-proclaimed Christians (all
> >fundamentalists, surprise, surprise) who insist that *they* have the
> >right to label themselves as Christians but those who disagree with
> >them (on matters always centering around evolution, surprise,
> >surprise) do not. Who has the right to call anyone a "scienticist" if
> >no one calls themselves that?
>
> Did any people call themselves "social darwinists"?
>
>
of SD (the one that explains cooperation) against the prevailing one ,
and used the term for a positive theory of cooperative anarchism.
Gabriel Tarde would be another example.Collin Wells wrote approvingly
of SD (again criticising the misuse of the term by others) but it is
unclear if he would have considered his own work to be SD.
Apart from that, you are of course right it was almost always and
right fromthe beginning used as a term of criticism rather then
positive self-ascription.
John S. Wilkins
There is a strong tendency of creationists to hijack terms that were
already in play, to mean things that the terms did not originally.
But "scientism" has an old history, well before the present creationism.
It used to mean, as I recall, the view that science is the basis for all
metaphysical commitments. It was invented, I think, by Max Weber in the
1920s.
However, I think it's an overblown caricature, rarely actually
encountered anywhere. When it is, the motivation is mostly ideology that
has little to do with science.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Vend
Why not?
It is a theory about events in the phenomenological world which
explains the available evidence (the historical documents, artifacts,
etc.)
> (A more scientific approach would be Tuchman's _March of Folly_ where she
> begins with a hypothesis of the causes of war and then supports that
> hypothesis with data. I'm not sure I'd call that science, but I would have
> no trouble calling it scientific.)
>
> > Aestethics and ethics are subjective: what is considered beautiful or
> > morally right tends to change from one society to another.
>
> I think you may be underestimating the role subjectivity (and aestethics)
> plays in science and overestimating the role of subjectivity in aestethics.
There is certainly an huge amount of subjectivity in the process of
scientific discovery, and also in the evaluation of which results are
interesting and which ones are trivial.
But my point is that it can be objectively (actually,
intersubjectively) decided which results are correct and which ones
are wrong, given the currently available evidence.
You can't do that in aestethics or ethics.
I'm not claiming that aestethics and ethics are useless, just that
they are in some way less reliable than science.
Burkhard
Do you know by any chance the German term that "scientism" is supposed
to translate? I can't think of one, apart maybe from
"Verwissenschaftlichung". One rather obvious difficulty would be that
in German, "science" always also applied to the humanities
("Geisteswissenschaften"). Weber himself was stridently opposed to
scientism, see especially his "Science as vocation" lecture, which
however does not have as far as I can see a noun for it.
>
> However, I think it's an overblown caricature, rarely actually
> encountered anywhere. When it is, the motivation is mostly ideology that
> has little to do with science.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
tg
Depending on what you mean by correct or wrong 'results'. Have 100
trained artists vote on a series of works, and their ordering will be
remarkably consistent, statistically. Isn't it fair to say that the
creators of the works are applying predictive theories, and that some
are 'correct' and some are 'wrong'?
-tg
Vend
Are you sure?
TomS
<1j3ddr9.zn15vz7cn5oxN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
The first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary in the "derogatory"
sense is to Shaw's "Back to Methuselah" (1921):
"The iconography and hagiology of Scientism are as copious as they are
mostly squalid."
>
>However, I think it's an overblown caricature, rarely actually
>encountered anywhere. When it is, the motivation is mostly ideology that
>has little to do with science.
--
Burkhard
Well, I'd say it can be trained, so arguably yes.
see already David Hume, ʻOf the Standard of Tasteʼ. Essays Moral, and
Political, and Literary,
for more modern treatment with some empirical data tha agrgue for (the
possibility of) inter subjective agreement see e.g.
Goldman, A. 1995. Aesthetic Value. Boulder: Westview Press
Brady, E. 2003. Aesthetics of the Natural Environment. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University
Press.
It is also something we should hope - at least to some extend, choice
between scientific theories is grounded in aesthetic judgement
(Occham's Razor being a potential candidate too)
See e.g. Plotnitsky, A. 1998. ʻScience and Aestheticsʼ. In M. Kelly
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Aesthetics,
vol. 4. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 250–52.
Robert Grumbine
> On Jul 24, 3:28 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 8:52 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 10:09 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 2009-07-24, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
[trimmage]
>> > > > Aestethics and ethics are subjective: what is considered beautiful or
>> > > > morally right tends to change from one society to another.
>>
>> > > I think you may be underestimating the role subjectivity (and aestethics)
>> > > plays in science and overestimating the role of subjectivity in aestethics.
>>
>> > There is certainly an huge amount of subjectivity in the process of
>> > scientific discovery, and also in the evaluation of which results are
>> > interesting and which ones are trivial.
>>
>> > But my point is that it can be objectively (actually,
>> > intersubjectively) decided which results are correct and which ones
>> > are wrong, given the currently available evidence.
>>
>> > You can't do that in aestethics or ethics.
>>
>> Depending on what you mean by correct or wrong 'results'. Have 100
>> trained artists vote on a series of works, and their ordering will be
>> remarkably consistent, statistically.
>
> Are you sure?
Don't know about him, but I am to at least the degree that I'm
confident that most people will take some defensive action on being
told by a reliable source that there's a tornado headed their way.
(I'm also sure that they won't all do so.)
My confidence increases as the quality range of the works increases.
If it was a collection of Picasso vs. a collection of van Gogh, etc.,
I expect that the mutual agreement wouldn't be as great. But as the
range of skill levels expands, towards, say, me (one of the worst
artists around), I think there'll be excellent agreement that indeed
da Vinci and Monet are on one end of the scale, and I'm on the other.
(If not, boy am I missing out on a money-making opportunity!)
For there to be no accord about aesthetics, I think you essentially
have to argue that there is no such thing as human psychology -- that
we are all so very independant mentally that there is nothing consistent
to study. That doesn't seem at all plausible.
I'll have to get the name of the article or book my wife was just
reading. A contention there is that there is indeed a consistent
underlying psychological base for aesthetics.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Martin Andersen
>> He's reacting to the claim that scientism actually exists beyond the
>> world of creationist fantasy. I too question that claim.
>
> As did I, until snex showed up. He's the only actual example I know of.
>
>> Who would attempt to lower science to the level of religion?
>
> snex doesn't claim that science is the best or most reliable method of
> perceiving reality, he claims it's the only way. Thus:
>
> [1] Epistemic scientiCists ... maintain that only scientific
> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
>
anything, is there, that can be demonstrated to work and that isn't
merely a subset of the scientific method?
[snip]
Burkhard
<snip>
>
> Don't know about him, but I am to at least the degree that I'm
> confident that most people will take some defensive action on being
> told by a reliable source that there's a tornado headed their way.
> (I'm also sure that they won't all do so.)
>
> My confidence increases as the quality range of the works increases.
> If it was a collection of Picasso vs. a collection of van Gogh, etc.,
> I expect that the mutual agreement wouldn't be as great. But as the
> range of skill levels expands, towards, say, me (one of the worst
> artists around), I think there'll be excellent agreement that indeed
> da Vinci and Monet are on one end of the scale, and I'm on the other.
> (If not, boy am I missing out on a money-making opportunity!)
>
> For there to be no accord about aesthetics, I think you essentially
> have to argue that there is no such thing as human psychology -- that
> we are all so very independant mentally that there is nothing consistent
> to study. That doesn't seem at all plausible.
>
> I'll have to get the name of the article or book my wife was just
> reading. A contention there is that there is indeed a consistent
> underlying psychological base for aesthetics.
>
> --
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
A Carlson, Functional Beauty (with G. Parsons) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008 would be a good example
snex
you expect an answer? you arent familiar with these people, are you?
snex
> On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> > > <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> > > > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> > > > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> > > > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> > > > kinds here.
>
> > > Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
> > them can come up with consistent statements.
>
> > and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
> > science. how sad and pathetic.
>
> For what it's worth I find his posts to be remarkably bullshit free. I
> can't speak for others but I'm guessing there are plenty here who
> would agree.
you should go over them again. he deliberately obfuscates and evades
simple questions. constantly.
>
> You have not sought my advice, but I feel compelled to ask - are you
> sure you wish to travel down this road (one akin to that taken by some
> of the loonier denizens of this group), wherein obvious reality is
> denied in favor of sustaining a grudge? Wouldn't it be a whole lot
> simpler just to leave that garbage behind and move on?
what obvious reality am i denying? garamonde is claiming that there
are "ways of knowing" other than science. where are they? how do they
work?
snex
> snex wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> >>> kinds here.
>
> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
> > them can come up with consistent statements.
>
> So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
> insight and knowledge?
what "profound insight and knowledge?" show it was insightful. lets
see your method.
>
> > and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
> > science. how sad and pathetic.
>
> I am afraid I don't follow you; I have not noticed any tendency towards
> pretentiousness by Garamond; as far as I can tell he has shown an exemplary
> ability to stay on topic and leave invectives against opponents out of the
> debate. Besides, as far as I can tell he's got every right to consider
> himself a scientist and to be accepted as such.
you arent paying attention. 90% of his replies to me are ad hominems.
and he doesnt even actually know my education level, he just invents
bullshit and pretends its true.
Burkhard
Depends a bit on what you mean with "demonstrated to work", and also
"scientific method".
Introspection would be one. Other forms of unsystematic personal
experience that are "good enough" for daily practice. Aesthetic and
other such sense perceptions as discussed on this thread others - you
know, all the stuff from the other of the "two cultures". The rest
depends just how much you read into the term "scientific method". Even
structural disciplines such as mathematics might fall outside the
scope if you insist on a specific notion of testing. And then of
course on what you mean with "demonstrated to work". Hermeneutic
disciplines in varying degrees, such as literary interpretation on one
end, historical sciences.on the other (most science like)
Robert Camp
I wasn't defending anything so lofty. Just the obvious reality that
his posts are articulate, informed and referenced. They are not full
of bullshit.
RLC
Garamond Lethe
I'll assume that we can define the "scientific method" as an
explicit process of hypothesis and validation.
The most obvious method of acquiring knowledge outside of the
scientifc method is by evolution.
Fogel DB, Hays TJ, Hahn SL, and Quon J (2004) “A Self-Learning
Evolutionary Chess Program,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 92:12,
pp. 1947-1954.
A more direct example of this is: Do not eat things that taste
bad. There is no process of hypothesis, experiment and validation
you go through when you smell rotting meat. Your genes aren't
going to take the chance of you screwing that one up.
If you've ever done any writing for publication, the techniques
that you use don't reduce to the scientific method. There may
be a process of empathy by which you try to imagine how your
reader to the words you're choosing and how you're arranging
them, but I think the art and practice of writing is sufficiently
removed from hypothesis->testing that there is a difference of
kind as well as degree. (This is not to say that you can't
think of writing as a very large collection of hypotheses with
imperfect verfication, I'm just saying that it's not a useful
model.)
Finally, if you've ever done any serious coding or mathematical
work, you're probably aware that there is a significant aesthetic
component. (Linus Torvalds has repeatedly insisted that "good
taste" is a necessary qualification for device driver writers,
Erdos ranked proofs not only by their correctness but by their
beauty.) This is much closer to learning how to play the piano
well rather than validating a series of hypotheses.
>
> [snip]
>
Garamond Lethe
> On Jul 24, 3:00 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> >>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> >>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> >>> kinds here.
>>
>> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>>
>> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
>> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
>> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
>> > them can come up with consistent statements.
>>
>> So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
>> insight and knowledge?
>
> what "profound insight and knowledge?" show it was insightful. lets
> see your method.
For theater, the best is Aristotle combined with Beckerman's _Dynamics of
Drama: Theory and Method of Analysis_.
I'm less familiar with literary criticism, but a safe place to start
would be Bloom's _The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages_.
For art, _The Shock of The New: The Hundred-Year History of Modern Art
Its Rise, Its Dazzling Achievement, It's Fall_.
For architecture, let's go with the snarky choice: Tom Wolfe's
_From Bauhaus to Our House_.
For music, there's a wonderful collection of the complete reviews
written by George Bernard Shaw in hardcover. The name escapes me
at the moment.
All except the first are very approachable by nonspecialists.
I get the impression that you don't read many books, though.
>
>>
>> > and he pretends hes a scientist because he has a degree in computer
>> > science. how sad and pathetic.
>>
>> I am afraid I don't follow you; I have not noticed any tendency towards
>> pretentiousness by Garamond; as far as I can tell he has shown an exemplary
>> ability to stay on topic and leave invectives against opponents out of the
>> debate. Besides, as far as I can tell he's got every right to consider
>> himself a scientist and to be accepted as such.
>
> you arent paying attention. 90% of his replies to me are ad hominems.
> and he doesnt even actually know my education level, he just invents
> bullshit and pretends its true.
>
So /that's/ the nerve I hit....
snex
> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 3:00 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >> snex wrote:
> >> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> >> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >> >>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >> >>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> >> >>> kinds here.
>
> >> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> >> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> >> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
> >> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
> >> > them can come up with consistent statements.
>
> >> So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
> >> insight and knowledge?
>
> > what "profound insight and knowledge?" show it was insightful. lets
> > see your method.
>
Garamond Lethe
Ah, Georgie B., we miss ya....
I don't recall a character saying that in the play (though I must say
I have a *very* dim memory of it). That probably means it's in the
preface. (Shaw is the only author I know who had his "collected
prefaces" published.)
And that's a good enough excuse to check it out of the library and
read it again.
Mark Isaak
> On Jul 24, 7:07 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> >> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> >> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> >> > kinds here.
>>
>> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>>
>> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
>> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there,
>>
>> Indeed I do.
>>
>> > but he cant tell us
>> > what they are
>>
>> I think I covered this earlier today.
>>
>> There's history, aesthetics, and ethics for starters.
>
> I think that history is science (or it should be).
> Aestethics and ethics are subjective: what is considered beautiful or
> morally right tends to change from one society to another.
Aesthetics yes, in many areas. But some things are considered beautiful
(healthy young women) or ugly (the smell of decaying flesh) across
cultures. Ethics, though they also vary, are less diverse than you might
think. Ethics appear to derive from biological instincts for living in
societies. They are both still subjective, but since they both have at
least some objective basis, they are both reliable, at least more
reliable than chance.
Another reliable source for knowledge is intuition. Indeed, it is often
*more* useful than scientific knowledge. When faced with a decision
such as: Is it safer to fight off the charging panther with just a tree
branch, or to jump into the river 30 feet below? -- the person who stops
to design a double-blind experiment is sure to end up dead, whereas the
person who uses their intuition will, more often than not, make the best
decision.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Garamond Lethe
Well, if you want to be spoon-fed, we can do that, too.
<q>
The mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s
must be beautiful; the ideas like the colours or the words, must fit
together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no
permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics. And here I
must deal with a misconception which is still widespread (though
probably much less so now than it was twenty years ago), what
Whitehead has called the ‘literary superstition’ that love of an
aesthetic appreciation of mathematics is ‘a monomania confined
to a few eccentrics in each generation’.
It would be quite difficult now to find an educated man quite
insensitive to the aesthetic appeal of mathematics. It may be very
hard to define mathematical beauty, but that is just as true of
beauty of any kind—we may not know quite what we mean by a
beautiful poem, but that does not prevent us from recognizing one
when we read it.
</q>
G. H. Hardy, _A Mathematician's Apology_, p. 14.
snex
Burkhard
I'd say this is also very much the experience we made in artificial
Intelligence. If knowledge were even mostly the type of explicit, rule
based knowledge that science produces, building AIs should have been
easy. Instead, we rely on a huge amount of diffuse "world
knowledge" (quite a lot of it stuff we uncritically accept from other
sources), intuitions, ad hoc assumptions etc. My legs "know" how to
walk down the stairs, I do not need to model a state in which I'm
already in th basement, an explicit description of where I am, and
then calculate the transition needed between them.
This type of "embodied knowledge" and all kinds of "know-how" would
also be on the list.
(My former colleague Alexander McCall-Smith wrote a novel once about
two German Professors trying to learn tennis - they read a book about
it and then go out to play. Th results are predictably hilarious)
Garamond Lethe
You might also like this:
J. M. Borwein, "Aesthetics for Working Mathematicians".
http://oldweb.cecm.sfu.ca/personal/jborwein/apaper.ps
He quotes Hardy and, more interesting, Hadamard:
"The object of mathematical rigour is to sanction and legitimize
the conquests of intuition, and there was never any other object
for it."
That describes science even better than it describes mathematics.
gregwrld
> On 2009-07-24, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
But isn't the Scientific Method really many
ways of "knowing"? Aren't there many ways
of observing (depending on scale, for example).
Aren't there many ways to take measurements
(techniques)? And don't scientists determine
which ways of knowing are best by their record
of success (using the particular technique, I mean).
And is a way of knowing valued as much for
its utility as its accuracy (I'm thinking of drawing
and painting techniques here)?
Just curious, mostly.
gregwrld
Garamond Lethe
Yes to all of that, but there's a subset of those
techniques that are blessed with the term "scientific".
Repeatability is one common characteristic of these.
Another is the ability to explain to another scientist
how the measurement was made (the two overlap a lot,
but not entirely).
>
> And is a way of knowing valued as much for
> its utility as its accuracy (I'm thinking of drawing
> and painting techniques here)?
>
I'm not nearly as much of a fan of accuracy as I am
of utility. If I have a model that explains well
and predict poorly, I've got a lot of tools to use
to help increase the accuracy. If I've got a model
that predicts well but explains poorly, I've got a
migraine. (The migraine will be submitted next week
to HPCA 2010.)
But to your point, methods of "knowing" that encompass
artistic or atheletic ability don't tend to be repeatable
or communicatable, and so I would tend to not file them
under "scientific".
> Just curious, mostly.
>
> gregwrld
>
tg
There are numerous textbooks and analyses that deal with the practice
and theory of art. And then there are art schools---so how could you
believe that these methods are not communicable or repeatable?
Artists are more like scientists than anyone else I can think of---
they do hypothesize, experiment, and revise all the time. They are
also subject to peer review if they want their work to be seen, and
that peer review relies on universal standards of quality. And then
there's the fact that they make up their own problems to solve, and
get accused of being silly and wasting taxpayer money if they have a
government grant. What more evidence do you need? ;-)
-tg
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
He answered the question, and quite thoroughly. The fact
that you don't accept the answer as valid is irrelevant.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Garamond Lethe
There is a small industry in teaching technique (be it art, basketball,
management, whatever). They will usually make a less-talented person
more effective, and they're valuable for that. More-talented people
tend not to bother --- they're off creating art.
(The more-talented people may end up teaching later in their career,
but there is actually a negative correlation between talent as an
artist and the ability to teach the techniques of art. People who
are less talented and who had to work harder to master their technique
tend to have thought a lot more about the process of mastery and
are thus in a better position to teach it.)
>
> Artists are more like scientists than anyone else I can think of---
> they do hypothesize, experiment, and revise all the time. They are
> also subject to peer review if they want their work to be seen, and
> that peer review relies on universal standards of quality. And then
> there's the fact that they make up their own problems to solve, and
> get accused of being silly and wasting taxpayer money if they have a
> government grant. What more evidence do you need? ;-)
>
I am *very* sympathetic to that view, although since the artists
were here first I'd say that science is simply a degenerate form
of art.
But yes, I'd say that one of the very few lines seperating them is
communication. I can't recreate how Darwin thought --- that's his
art --- but I can follow step-by-step through this hypotheses and
conclusions and, given minimal skill in the art, expect to replicate
it. I also can't recreate how Francis Bacon (the artist) thought,
and while I can study his body of work, that work is closed to me
in a sense that science shouldn't be.
Damn good point, btw.
Garamond Lethe
>> On 2009-07-24, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 7:07 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>>
>> >> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> >> >> > guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> >> >> > existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> >> >> > kinds here.
>>
>> >> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>>
>> >> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
>> >> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there,
>>
>>
>> >> > but he cant tell us
>> >> > what they are
>>
>>
>> >> There's history, aesthetics, and ethics for starters.
>>
>> > I think that history is science (or it should be).
>>
>> approach to history where you hypothesize, measure, repeat.
>>
>> The difficulty is that so much of what we consider to be interesting history
>> is one-offs. Taking an example from Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_,
>> there was only one Sire de Coucy, and constructing the story (or history) of
>> his life from a string of unique facts is valid history, but not valid science.
>
> Why not?
> It is a theory about events in the phenomenological world which
> explains the available evidence (the historical documents, artifacts,
> etc.)
>
>> (A more scientific approach would be Tuchman's _March of Folly_ where she
>> begins with a hypothesis of the causes of war and then supports that
>> hypothesis with data. I'm not sure I'd call that science, but I would have
>> no trouble calling it scientific.)
>>
>> > morally right tends to change from one society to another.
>>
>> plays in science and overestimating the role of subjectivity in aestethics.
>
> There is certainly an huge amount of subjectivity in the process of
> scientific discovery, and also in the evaluation of which results are
> interesting and which ones are trivial.
>
> But my point is that it can be objectively (actually,
> intersubjectively) decided which results are correct and which ones
> are wrong, given the currently available evidence.
I agree, but I don't find the hard questions in science to be ones of
correctness so much as ones of importance. As you mentioned above,
subjectivity (and, I'd argue, art) enters in here. It's a lot harder
to learn how to get important results than it is to learn how to get
correct results.
>
> You can't do that in aestethics or ethics.
Just to be conversational, I'll disagree. One's reasoning in ethics can
be held, more or less universally, to be correct or incorrect. Aestethics
can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
At this level, I find these methods of knowing to be reliable.
> I'm not claiming that aestethics and ethics are useless, just that
> they are in some way less reliable than science.
This might be selection bias on your part. You are (I think) very familiar
with several branches of science, you follow current issues, you read about
it, and this has allowed you to have a fair amount of confidence in
determining what is reliable and what is suspect.
If I took you to a modern dance performance, you might be at a total
loss as to whether the performance was good or bad, amaturish or professional.
Yet someone who has spent as much time studying dance as you have studying
science would have no difficulty judging the performance.
>
>> But I've now been in the lab for 19 hours and I need to be back in 5, so
>> I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for the moment.
>
snex
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:17:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
>
>
> >On Jul 24, 11:12 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-24, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 24, 3:00 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >> >> snex wrote:
> >> >> > On Jul 23, 9:35 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:14:05 +0000 (UTC), Garamond Lethe
>
> >> >> >> <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> >> >> >>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> >> >> >>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> >> >> >>> kinds here.
>
> >> >> >> Bullshit detected: reading terminated.
>
> >> >> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
> >> >> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
> >> >> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
> >> >> > them can come up with consistent statements.
>
> >> >> So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
> >> >> insight and knowledge?
>
> >> > what "profound insight and knowledge?" show it was insightful. lets
> >> > see your method.
>
> ><snip anything that doesnt answer the question>
>
> He answered the question, and quite thoroughly. The fact
> that you don't accept the answer as valid is irrelevant.
no, he really didnt. i asked what profound insight or knowledge was
displayed by ibsen and for a demonstration of how it was insightful.
his reply didnt even reference ibsen or any of his works.
you do know how to read english dont you?
Garamond Lethe
Well, if you want to discuss Ibsen, let's discuss Ibsen.
"Interpreted in its day as a satire on the Norwegian
personality, Peer Gynt is the story of a life based
on avoidance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_Gynt
When I read this 22 years ago, I knew nothing of Norwegians.
I did know, however, quite a bit about the residents of my
hometown and the people in my high school. It may have been
intended as satire, but I took it as a validation of my
decision to leave.
The Beckerman book I cited previously gives one methodology
for arriving at insights like this. Aristotle's _Poetics_
is another.
>
> you do know how to read english dont you?
>
Have you read any Ibsen?
John S. Wilkins
It's a crucial document because it defends neo-Lamarckism against the
nascent neo-Darwinism of the day.
>
> >
> >>
> >>However, I think it's an overblown caricature, rarely actually
> >>encountered anywhere. When it is, the motivation is mostly ideology that
> >>has little to do with science.
> >
> >
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
lord griggs1947
> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
> > > "On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:36:27 +1000, in article
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Advanced theologian, haughty John Haught contemns us naturalists for
not allowing other venues of knowledge rather than the empirical , but
he begs the question of assuming those venues: where is then the beef,
John? And atheologian John L. Schellenberg decries us naturalists for
relying on ever-changing science. but that is the glory of science!
That is provisional knowledge- truth rather than the Truth.This jJohn
advances the case for atheism. Ponder his " Wisdom to Doubt" and his
other books. He makes the hiddenness argument against Him.
We naturalists have our own arguments against Him [ positive
atheism], not just arguments gainsaying those of theists.
Oh, please do ponder Kai Nielsen's " Naturalism and Religion" and
"Naturalism without Foundations."
John S. Wilkins
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
I see. You asked (in general) for examples of
non-scientific-method-derived knowledge, and when these were
provided you failed to acknowledge the fact and retreated to
the position that since your specific (and later) question
about Ibsen hadn't been addressed no answer had been
provided. When fundies do this sort of thing it's generally
referred to as "shifting the goalposts"; should we do the
same when it's done by proponents of scientism, which, if
you can recall, was the original subject?
>you do know how to read english dont you?
Yes; I can even use correct English capitalization and
punctuation.
Mike L
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:44:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
[...]
>
> >you do know how to read english dont you?
>
> Yes; I can even use correct English capitalization and
> punctuation.
Ah, showing consideration for your readers: a sure sign of weakness.
Real Men ® don't need no steenkin' courtesy.
--
Mike.
Ray Martinez
> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> kinds here.
>
> [1] Epistemic scienticists ... maintain that only scientific
> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
>
> [2] Rational scienticists ... argue that, since science cannot
> say anything about an Ultimate Reality or soul, Ultimate
> Reality or soul do not exist.
>
> [3] Ontological scienticists, assert that only those phenomena,
> processes and events exist which the natural sciences, by way
> of their methods, are able to depict.
>
> [4] Axiological scienticists mean that all human education should
> be based on science because all other educational methods are
> insufficient and unsatisfactory.
>
> [5] Value-theoretical scientism means that the natural sciences
> can exhaustively explain all ethical issues and should replace
> classical ethics.
>
> [6] Existential scientism is related to value-theoretical scientism
> but concerns all religions and worldviews. Hence, the natural
> sciences should replace religion.
> </q>
>
> Anne L.C. Runehov, ‘Review of Chaos, Complexity, and God:
> Divine Action and Scientism,’ Ars Disputandi
> [http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 6 (2006).
Hence the Religion of Scientism (Scott 2001). All practioners are
Darwinists who deign to commit idolatry, replacing God with their
atheistic ideas (stealing credit for creation: "we originate from
animals"); as old as Aaron's golden calf. "Hear O' Israel: the god
that delivered you from the hands of the Egyptians."
What is the difference between Aaron, Darwin, Gould, Dawkins and
Lethe?
Other than a few thousand years and the fact that Aaron repented----
nothing at all.
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Scott, as you clearly know, was a fool. You cannot trust anything he
ever said.
Rolf
Where do *you* fit into the picture?
Frank J
What is the difference between Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, and Michael Behe?
Other than a few billion years and common descent.
So which of them is right and which commit idolatry? Oh, wait, they
all must commit idolatry because none of them agree with your old-
earth-young-bioshphere "theory."
Vend
Indeed, because correctness can be shown more easily.
In theory, you could verify the correctness of theorem proofs using
relatively simple programs, and I've heard that some biology labs have
robots that perform repetitive experiments, testing hundreds of
hypotheses.
> As you mentioned above,
> subjectivity (and, I'd argue, art) enters in here. It's a lot harder
> to learn how to get important results than it is to learn how to get
> correct results.
Because no good theory of result importance is known.
> > You can't do that in aestethics or ethics.
>
> Just to be conversational, I'll disagree. One's reasoning in ethics can
> be held, more or less universally, to be correct or incorrect.
Many people tend to disagree about the basic premises.
Is it ok to own capital as private property? Is it ok to own humans?
Should property be inheritable? Should public offices be inheritable?
etc.
> Aestethics
> can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
I disagree. People have all kinds of tastes.
> At this level, I find these methods of knowing to be reliable.
>
> > I'm not claiming that aestethics and ethics are useless, just that
> > they are in some way less reliable than science.
>
> This might be selection bias on your part. You are (I think) very familiar
> with several branches of science, you follow current issues, you read about
> it, and this has allowed you to have a fair amount of confidence in
> determining what is reliable and what is suspect.
>
> If I took you to a modern dance performance, you might be at a total
> loss as to whether the performance was good or bad, amaturish or professional.
> Yet someone who has spent as much time studying dance as you have studying
> science would have no difficulty judging the performance.
I suppose it is possible, at least in theory, to scientifically study
the criteria that make an artistic performance good or bad in a
specific culture. It could be even possible to study the evolution of
these criteria.
Maybe it is possible to reduce aestetics to science, but it might be
not practically feasible, and at any rate is not currently done, as
far as I know.
hersheyh
> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
> kinds here.
>
> [1] Epistemic scienticists ... maintain that only scientific
> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
Well, toward empirically *validated* and empirically *correctable*
knowledge. Religious visions and fundamentalist literal textual
readings have a poor track record and lack good mechanisms for even
the crudest error correction other than new visions or claims of
previous misinterpretation. Like the stopped clock methods that they
are, however, they can be right occasionally.
I was going to say that scientific knowledge is *useful*, but, for
individuals, religious 'knowledge' that isn't directly contradictory
to nature (a vision that you will float upon walking out the 23rd
story window tends to a rather abrupt collision with the reality of a
concrete sidewalk) can be "useful" in some ways.
Frank J
Why, he's the painter, of course. That you even dare to ask proooves
that you're an atheist. ;-)
>
>
>
> > Other than a few thousand years and the fact that Aaron repented----
> > nothing at all.
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Garamond Lethe
> On Jul 23, 9:14 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> Scientism had come up recently in another thread (you can probably
>> guess which one). I didn't think scienticists [mind the spelling]
>> existed outside of thought experiments. You really do meet all
>> kinds here.
>>
>> <q>
>> [1] Epistemic scienticists ... maintain that only scientific
>> methods are trustworthy paths toward knowledge.
>
> Well, toward empirically *validated* and empirically *correctable*
> knowledge.
That doesn't describe the world I live in.
Taking another example from theater: the process of writing and
previewing, and revising a play involves both empirically
validatible (via applause or rotten fruit) and correctable
knowledge. Yet this knowledge is not scientific.
snex would argue that this knowledge isn't trustworthy. But then,
snex doesn't write a lot of plays.
I understand the temptation to divide the world into "science" and
"not-science" in order to dismiss religion. I find such a division
gets rid of the most interesting bits of the world, including the
aesthetic appreciation of science.
Garamond Lethe
I wouldn't classify these as basic (private property, capital and
public office are all very recent inventions).
Here's a much more basic premise. You have an item on your person.
I take it by force.
I'm not aware of any culture where this would be considered "right"
or even neutral.
>
>> Aestethics
>> can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
>
> I disagree. People have all kinds of tastes.
>
And people have all kinds of ideas about science. Yet people who are
trained in science or trained in art do come to very similar conclusions
about basic comptence.
>> At this level, I find these methods of knowing to be reliable.
>>
>> > I'm not claiming that aestethics and ethics are useless, just that
>> > they are in some way less reliable than science.
>>
>> This might be selection bias on your part. You are (I think) very familiar
>> with several branches of science, you follow current issues, you read about
>> it, and this has allowed you to have a fair amount of confidence in
>> determining what is reliable and what is suspect.
>>
>> If I took you to a modern dance performance, you might be at a total
>> loss as to whether the performance was good or bad, amaturish or professional.
>> Yet someone who has spent as much time studying dance as you have studying
>> science would have no difficulty judging the performance.
>
> I suppose it is possible, at least in theory, to scientifically study
> the criteria that make an artistic performance good or bad in a
> specific culture. It could be even possible to study the evolution of
> these criteria.
>
> Maybe it is possible to reduce aestetics to science, but it might be
> not practically feasible, and at any rate is not currently done, as
> far as I know.
>
Agreed.
Vend
<snip>
> >> Just to be conversational, I'll disagree. One's reasoning in ethics can
> >> be held, more or less universally, to be correct or incorrect.
>
> > Many people tend to disagree about the basic premises.
>
> > Is it ok to own capital as private property? Is it ok to own humans?
> > Should property be inheritable? Should public offices be inheritable?
> > etc.
>
> I wouldn't classify these as basic (private property, capital and
> public office are all very recent inventions).
Very recent? Private property and public office were present since at
least the Greeks, or even the Egyptians. Capital is a more recent
word, but it existed in some form since antiquity.
> Here's a much more basic premise. You have an item on your person.
> I take it by force.
>
> I'm not aware of any culture where this would be considered "right"
> or even neutral.
In certain cultures stealing from outsiders is considered acceptable.
> >> Aestethics
> >> can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
>
> > I disagree. People have all kinds of tastes.
>
> And people have all kinds of ideas about science. Yet people who are
> trained in science or trained in art do come to very similar conclusions
> about basic comptence.
There are many artistic trends and movements, both present and past,
which often disagree about the value of artworks.
There scientific trends about what is interesting to study and what is
not, but typically there is a general agreement about correctness
(although the devil is in the details).
Burkhard
> On Jul 26, 6:46 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@liamg.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Just to be conversational, I'll disagree. One's reasoning in ethics can
>>>> be held, more or less universally, to be correct or incorrect.
>>> Many people tend to disagree about the basic premises.
>>> Is it ok to own capital as private property? Is it ok to own humans?
>>> Should property be inheritable? Should public offices be inheritable?
>>> etc.
>> I wouldn't classify these as basic (private property, capital and
>> public office are all very recent inventions).
>
> Very recent? Private property and public office were present since at
> least the Greeks, or even the Egyptians. Capital is a more recent
> word, but it existed in some form since antiquity.
True, but now look at what counted as "scientific knowledge" at these
times. That too woudl have looked quite different from now. So you
"could" try to argue that both our scientific and ethical knowledge has
moved on since then - no
>
>> Here's a much more basic premise. You have an item on your person.
>> I take it by force.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any culture where this would be considered "right"
>> or even neutral.
>
> In certain cultures stealing from outsiders is considered acceptable.
>
>>>> Aestethics
>>>> can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
>>> I disagree. People have all kinds of tastes.
>> And people have all kinds of ideas about science. Yet people who are
>> trained in science or trained in art do come to very similar conclusions
>> about basic comptence.
>
> There are many artistic trends and movements, both present and past,
> which often disagree about the value of artworks.
> There scientific trends about what is interesting to study and what is
> not, but typically there is a general agreement about correctness
> (although the devil is in the details).
>
The question then becomes what the correct comparators are. Is the
difference between expressionism and impressionism e.g. maybe simply the
equivalent of the debate between aquatic ape theorists and the rest in
TO? In that case we would find in both fields substantial agreement and
disagreement alike. Or is it a more substantial difference, more similar
to say particle mechanics vs relativity? In this case Art has more
disagreement. Or maybe, it is even less of a real disagreement about the
nature of art or what is great art, but simply a new application? Then
the comparators woudl be theory of gravitation applied to stars vs
theory of gravity applied to building bridges.
The latter would be supported by this observation: Even though no modern
sculptor worth his money would sculpt in the style of Michaelangelo,
you will find huge and enduring agreement that his David is great and
moving Art. You will find that through the ages, Artists who went on to
work in very different ways were nonetheless taught about him. And of
course you still get people faint every day in the Academy when they get
culture shock, or so the Florentines keep saying. Even radical change in
style then is not really a disagreement, just a new way doing the same
thing.
Having said that, we should also not overstate the case. Illustrative
is a side-by-side look at the Nobel prices for physics and literature.
I'd say that in physics, we still recognise most of the names and
appreciate their contribution. In literature, many names will be
considered in the "rightly forgotten" category, and people baffled by
the thought that this work was once deemed praiseworthy.
Garamond Lethe
>
><snip>
>
>> >> Just to be conversational, I'll disagree. One's reasoning in ethics can
>> >> be held, more or less universally, to be correct or incorrect.
>>
>> > Many people tend to disagree about the basic premises.
>>
>> > Is it ok to own capital as private property? Is it ok to own humans?
>> > Should property be inheritable? Should public offices be inheritable?
>> > etc.
>>
>> I wouldn't classify these as basic (private property, capital and
>> public office are all very recent inventions).
>
> Very recent? Private property and public office were present since at
> least the Greeks, or even the Egyptians. Capital is a more recent
> word, but it existed in some form since antiquity.
For basic morality, I would consider the Greeks to be quite late. But
I should have indicated the timescale I was considering. Sorry.
>
>> Here's a much more basic premise. You have an item on your person.
>> I take it by force.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any culture where this would be considered "right"
>> or even neutral.
>
> In certain cultures stealing from outsiders is considered acceptable.
>
Know of any cultures where being stolen from is considered acceptable?
(In the immediate sense of this example.) It may be tolerated, but I
think the sense of greivance is going to be pretty universal.
Marc Hauser at Harvard looks like he works along these lines. His book
on the topic is _Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of
Right and Wrong_. I've not read it, and I've only heard a couple of
interviews where he's talked about his work on Public Radio. Looking
over the Amazon reviews, I'm not sure I want to defend his approach.
Still, might be worth a skim.
>> >> Aestethics
>> >> can usually come to a near-universal understanding about basic competence.
>>
>> > I disagree. People have all kinds of tastes.
>>
>> And people have all kinds of ideas about science. Yet people who are
>> trained in science or trained in art do come to very similar conclusions
>> about basic comptence.
>
> There are many artistic trends and movements, both present and past,
> which often disagree about the value of artworks.
>
Can you give an example outside the last 100 years? I'm thinking that
the folks who scoured the world to bring back items for the British museum
had a common understanding with the people who created the artifacts as
to what was significant.
As you say, the devil is in the details, and you might not be able to
get a consensus on "What is the tenth-best Monet?". But aside from a
few publicity hounds, I don't think anyone would rank Bacon over Monet.
> There scientific trends about what is interesting to study and what is
> not, but typically there is a general agreement about correctness
> (although the devil is in the details).
Absolutely.
>
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mike L
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>:
Yeah, I even show consideration for snex; if not a sign of
weakness, at least a sign of weak-mindedness.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
Ah, yes; your personal deity (long may He drizzle).
But yes, scientism does bear all the hallmarks of a
religion. Science, of course, does not.
<snip Raydiocy>
Burkhard
If you want something that is more descriptive and does not directly try
to explain commonality by efficiency, you could try Donald Brown: Human
Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. The incest taboo is probably
the most commonly discussed example. There is however little research
on legal universals in particular, for all sorts of reasons.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
<ven...@virgilio.it>:
<snip>
>In certain cultures stealing from outsiders is considered acceptable.
Of course; just ask any business owner in a tourist town. Or
any inhabitant of Washington (DC, not the state).
<snip>
Garamond Lethe
It's due back in the library in January. If I get through my to-read
pile I'll put in a recall notice on it. Thanks!
snex
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:44:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
no, i didnt. re-read the exchange.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
Then you should try reading for comprehension; your initial
statement (which he *did* answer) is right at the top of
this post:
[snex]
>> >> >> >> > garamonde's posts are indeed full of bullshit. he thinks there are
>> >> >> >> > other reliable systems of knowledge out there, but he cant tell us
>> >> >> >> > what they are or how they are supposed to work, or why nobody who uses
>> >> >> >> > them can come up with consistent statements.
After a second exchange (in which Garamond referenced
Ibsen), he provided several cites which supported his point
and answered your original statement (above). Since they
didn't specifically reference Ibsen you snipped them and
claimed he hadn't answered you. Try to keep up.
snex
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:07:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
here is the relevant exchange:
> >> >> >> >> So much for philosophy or poetry. How did Ibsen arrive at his profound
> >> >> >> >> insight and knowledge?
>
> >> >> >> > what "profound insight and knowledge?" show it was insightful. lets
> >> >> >> > see your method.
my question was not answered.
Garamond Lethe
And once again your faith lets you down.
From the following message:
Message-ID: <h4dcea$i2f$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:43:23 +0000 (UTC)
<q>
Well, if you want to discuss Ibsen, let's discuss Ibsen.
"Interpreted in its day as a satire on the Norwegian
personality, Peer Gynt is the story of a life based
on avoidance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_Gynt
When I read this 22 years ago, I knew nothing of Norwegians.
I did know, however, quite a bit about the residents of my
hometown and the people in my high school. It may have been
intended as satire, but I took it as a validation of my
decision to leave.
The Beckerman book I cited previously gives one methodology
for arriving at insights like this. Aristotle's _Poetics_
is another.
</q>
snex
Robert Grumbine
[trim]
> Aesthetics yes, in many areas. But some things are considered beautiful
> (healthy young women) or ugly (the smell of decaying flesh) across
> cultures. Ethics, though they also vary, are less diverse than you might
> think. Ethics appear to derive from biological instincts for living in
> societies. They are both still subjective, but since they both have at
> least some objective basis, they are both reliable, at least more
> reliable than chance.
>
> Another reliable source for knowledge is intuition. Indeed, it is often
> *more* useful than scientific knowledge. When faced with a decision
> such as: Is it safer to fight off the charging panther with just a tree
> branch, or to jump into the river 30 feet below? -- the person who stops
> to design a double-blind experiment is sure to end up dead, whereas the
> person who uses their intuition will, more often than not, make the best
> decision.
In many cases, and I think this might be an evolutionary feature,
we simply make a snap decision and do _something_. I'm not sure, in
a controlled experiment way, whether I'd be better off jumping into that
river of uncertain depth and definitely long drop, or to start yelling
and flailing with the tree branch. But I am certain that standing
there debating the question is a bad choice.
Where we run in to real problems is where technologies or circumstances
have changed to the point that many of our snap decisions are the wrong
ones. Now that we have grease and oil fires, vs. wood/grass/dung, the
snap decision of 'throw water on the fire' is sometimes an extremely bad
one -- worse than doing nothing. Now that there are 7 billion of us,
our thinking in terms of a group of 50 or so (with implicit assumption
thatall of them experience the same sorts of things) is a serious drawback.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
Your *second* question was not answered. Your first
(implicit) question was indeed answered, just as I showed.
Of course, you failed to acknowledge that, as usual when
you're wrong. You exhibit all the worst traits of the
fundies you *claim* to despise.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@liamg.com>:
Give up. As a True Believer (TM) he will continue to ignore
anything which contradicts his worldview.
snex
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:00:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
neither were answered. i saw nothing profound or insightful in any of
garamonde's posts.
Garamond Lethe
Let me turn the question around then.
What profound insights do you have to offer from literature or art,
and how did you arrive at them?
I would prefer that you address Ibsen, as I assume you have some
familiarity with the body of work. But I'm passably familiar with
Western literature, theater and painting, less familiar with
architecture and music, and unfamiliar with dance and sculpture.
You have had the experience of gaining insight from a work of
art, right?
If your methodology is better than mine, I'd be happy to adopt
it. But I've got a suspicion that you don't interact with art
on any level (except, perhaps, watching a lot of television).
Where would you like to begin?
snex
i never claimed to have anything to offer. you did. put up or shut up,
liar boy.
Garamond Lethe
Yes, I did. You asked for a specific insight from Ibsen, and I gave
you one. It was a rather pointless exercise since you haven't read
Ibsen and he's certainly not my favorite author, but you asked....
Here's another example. David Hansen's "I Hate This" is a one-person
play about a father's reaction to his first child being stillborn.
The two Aristotelian concepts that are most applicable to this work
are catharsis and mimesis. Dave is a good friend of mine, but this
is not the kind of thing that is easy to discuss directly. But
when he put himself onstage playing the part of David Hansen
(mimesis), he can directly address the topic in a way that allows
the audience to hear what he has to say and greive with him
(catharsis).
So that's the "what". The "how" goes back to Beckerman's ideas of
tension and release in drama. As a performer, you can build up
tension in your audience for quite a bit of time, but eventually
they need some release. If you don't know what you're doing, that
release can come as unintended laughter in a place in the performance
where you really didn't want it to happen. Both David and I studied
under one of Beckerman's students, and he knew that the subject matter
was heavy enough that he'd have to provide several points of respite,
or else the audience would just shut down. So while there aren't
any jokes per se in the production, there is laughter, and it occurs
at exactly the points and exactly the reasons David planned.
I found the performance to be profound not only on an emotional
and personal level, but a critical level as well. The play was
(and is) effective not because of the subject matter, but because
of its craftsmanship.
You mentioned that you never claimed to have anything to offer.
That's true. You don't.
What I have works. You're asking me to replace it with...?
http://www.davidhansen.org/i_hate_this.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/theater/reviews/19frin.html
snex
you gave nothing more than your opinion. i didnt ask for your
opinions. i asked for the actual profundity and insight you claimed
you could offer.
if all you had was an opinion to begin with, you could have saved a
lot of time by simply saying so, rather than making a sweeping claim
that your opinion is somehow profound and insightful to anybody but
you.
<snip further opinions>
Garamond Lethe
Weren't you just complaining that I kept offering citations
instead of my own opinion?
Anyway, I also gave the opinion of the NYTimes theater critic.
And references to Aristotle and Beckerman. And a link to the
show's web page where you can find other reviews.
You have given considerably less. Like I said, what I have
works. You don't have anything. I think I'll keep what I have.
If you choose to continue down this path you'll find lots of
other ineffective epistemological nihilists at the end of it.
> i didnt ask for your
> opinions. i asked for the actual profundity and insight you claimed
> you could offer.
Which you snipped.
As David put it, there is no word in English for "the father of a
dead child". Discussing this topic is very difficult in person, but
it's exactly the kind of thing at which theater excels. He used
an explanatory framework from Aristotle and the methodolgy from
Beckerman in order to allow the audience to grieve with him.
And that is profound.
> if all you had was an opinion to begin with, you could have saved a
> lot of time by simply saying so, rather than making a sweeping claim
> that your opinion is somehow profound and insightful to anybody but
> you.
...and the theater critic from the New York Times, the several other
reviewers who wrote about the show, and the several international
audiences who have seen it.
I've got evidence. What do you have?
>
><snip further opinions>
>
snex
nope, i complained that you failed to give answers to actual questions
i asked. and you still have failed. i didnt ask your opinion about
what was profound. i asked for the *actual* profundity. no amount of
you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
It's relevant in that it shows snex has no interest in an actual
discussion.
snex
with lethe the liar? absolutely not.
if anybody else cares to discuss without evading, obfuscating, and
outright lying though, ill be more than happy to engage them.
Garamond Lethe
Could I borrow your profundity meter? I've not seen mine for a while,
and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
> no amount of
> you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
> share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
your measurements? Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
> just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
> opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
this.
I have evidence. What do you have?
snex
then perhaps you should stop making assertions about profundity.
> and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
none of the "experts" you cited had meters either.
>
> > no amount of
> > you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
> > share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
>
> And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
you are the one making claims. if you cant back them up, maybe you
shouldnt make them.
>
> Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
> your measurements?
no, i cant. but then, im not the one claiming anything to be profound.
you are.
> Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
im saying you cant back up your assertions, so you should stop
pretending they are binding on anybody but you.
>
> > just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
> > opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
>
> Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
> opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
> this.
none of the people you cited have any way to calculate profundity.
they are therefore not "experts" in any relevant way.
>
> I have evidence. What do you have?
you dont have evidence. you have your opinions and the opinions of
others. none of you can actually demonstrate any profundity - you
merely assert it and pretend your assertions are binding on everybody
else. exactly like religious people do.
Garamond Lethe
Or maybe I should go to school for a few years and learn how
to observe it without the use of special equipment. Which I did.
Since you haven't, maybe you should take your own advice.
>
>> and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
>
> none of the "experts" you cited had meters either.
>
Yes! Exactly! And since you're not willing to discard the concept
altogether, that means there must be another, non-scientific way of
observing it.
When was the last time you attended the theater?
>>
>> > no amount of
>> > you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
>> > share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
>>
>> And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
>
> you are the one making claims. if you cant back them up, maybe you
> shouldnt make them.
I gave you my evidence. My approach explains and predicts the
world that I participate in.
Your approach can't explain art or literature.
I think I prefer mine.
>
>>
>> Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
>> your measurements?
>
> no, i cant. but then, im not the one claiming anything to be profound.
> you are.
>
And I have good reason to.
>> Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
>
> im saying you cant back up your assertions,
Except for citing relevant experts as well as my own expert observations.
Not only is that sufficient, it's far more than you've managed to do.
> so you should stop
> pretending they are binding on anybody but you.
So what was the last book you read?
>
>>
>> > just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
>> > opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
>>
>> Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
>> opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
>> this.
>
> none of the people you cited have any way to calculate profundity.
And you know this how?
You've read the _Poetics_, perhaps? You've studied Beckerman?
I can calculate (relative) profundity with no difficulty at all.
Shakespeare is more profound than Beckett, Shaw is more profound
than Kushner.
Going to school will let you do neat things like that.
> they are therefore not "experts" in any relevant way.
>
Ah, so neither Aristotle nor Beckerman is an expert in theater.
Would you be able to provide me an example of someone who is
an expert?
(No, you wouldn't. Sorry, I'm just pulling your chain.)
Running away from evidence that contradicts your point of view
isn't very scientific of you.
>>
>> I have evidence. What do you have?
>
> you dont have evidence. you have your opinions and the opinions of
> others.
The opinions of relevant experts is evidence.
Here's what you think of as evidence:
> summary(m02bn)
Call:
lm(formula = d$nsFrom0[f2] ~ d$p0[f0] + d$p2[f0] + d$p3[f0])
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.0337 -0.0108 -0.0058 0.0118 0.0378
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.1362 0.0173 7.88 2.3e-08 ***
d$p0[f0] 0.8706 0.0195 44.65 < 2e-16 ***
d$p2[f0] 1.9455 0.1911 10.18 1.5e-10 ***
d$p3[f0] -1.1708 0.1757 -6.66 4.6e-07 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.0177 on 26 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.995, Adjusted R-squared: 0.995
F-statistic: 1.86e+03 on 3 and 26 DF, p-value: <2e-16
It is my *opinion* that is R^2 value is meaningful over the given
degrees of freedom, that the experiments selected were appropriate,
that the measurements were performed correctly, and that I'm predicting
what I'm saying I'm predicting. Since I'm an expert, that's good enough
to get this published.
> none of you can actually demonstrate any profundity
It's not terribly difficult. People who go to the theater regularly
have no trouble with it. The same goes for people who read serious
literature.
I take it you don't do either (but still have no difficulty making
pronoucements on the topic).
> - you
> merely assert it and pretend your assertions are binding on everybody
> else. exactly like religious people do.
It would be convenient for you if that were the case. It's not.
(Does it bother you a little bit that your world view can't handle
literature?)
snex
> On 2009-07-29, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Yes, I did. You asked for a specific insight from Ibsen, and I gave
> >> >> >> you one. It was a rather pointless exercise since you haven't read
> >> >> >> Ibsen and he's certainly not my favorite author, but you asked....
>
> >> >> > you gave nothing more than your opinion.
>
> >> >> Weren't you just complaining that I kept offering citations
> >> >> instead of my own opinion?
>
> >> > nope, i complained that you failed to give answers to actual questions
> >> > i asked. and you still have failed. i didnt ask your opinion about
> >> > what was profound. i asked for the *actual* profundity.
>
> >> Could I borrow your profundity meter? I've not seen mine for a while,
>
> > then perhaps you should stop making assertions about profundity.
>
> Or maybe I should go to school for a few years and learn how
> to observe it without the use of special equipment. Which I did.
and maybe if you paid $1,000,000 to the scientology cult, youd learn
how to get rid of your thetans. i mean they *could* be entirely full
of shit, but do you really want to risk it? whats a mere million
dollars in exchange for eternal peace?
>
> Since you haven't, maybe you should take your own advice.
you have no idea where ive been, clown. this is just another lie about
me made up by you because you cant actually defend your position.
>
> >> and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
>
> > none of the "experts" you cited had meters either.
>
> Yes! Exactly! And since you're not willing to discard the concept
> altogether, that means there must be another, non-scientific way of
> observing it.
maybe there is no "it" to be observed, moron. maybe all you are doing
is claiming that *your* personal opinion is binding on everybody else.
prove that this isnt the case. show the profundity.
>
> When was the last time you attended the theater?
>
>
> >> > no amount of
> >> > you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
> >> > share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
>
> >> And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
>
> > you are the one making claims. if you cant back them up, maybe you
> > shouldnt make them.
>
> I gave you my evidence. My approach explains and predicts the
> world that I participate in.
you gave no evidence at all. you gave your opinion, which was merely a
repetition of the assertion. then you gave the opinions of others,
which again, were merely repetitions of the assertion.
>
> Your approach can't explain art or literature.
>
> I think I prefer mine.
you have no approach other than "make shit up and believe it, then
claim that it is binding on everybody else." or, since we know you
have very little of a mind of your own, "pick something somebody else
made up and believe it, then claim that it is binding on everybody
else."
>
>
> >> Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
> >> your measurements?
>
> > no, i cant. but then, im not the one claiming anything to be profound.
> > you are.
>
> And I have good reason to.
no, you dont. you have good reason to think that something seems
profound *to you.* but nobody gives a shit how things seem *to you.*
*you* are nobody.
>
> >> Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
>
> > im saying you cant back up your assertions,
>
> Except for citing relevant experts as well as my own expert observations.
dont make me laugh.
>
> Not only is that sufficient, it's far more than you've managed to do.
>
> > so you should stop
> > pretending they are binding on anybody but you.
>
> So what was the last book you read?
>
>
>
> >> > just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
> >> > opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
>
> >> Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
> >> opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
> >> this.
>
> > none of the people you cited have any way to calculate profundity.
>
> And you know this how?
show me how they calculated it then.
>
> You've read the _Poetics_, perhaps? You've studied Beckerman?
ill bet $100 there are no equations in any of these works showing how
to calculate profundity.
>
> I can calculate (relative) profundity with no difficulty at all.
> Shakespeare is more profound than Beckett, Shaw is more profound
> than Kushner.
prove it.
>
> Going to school will let you do neat things like that.
i guess, if you happen to go to a shitty school that only places value
on statements uttered by the people running the school merely because
they run the school.
>
> > they are therefore not "experts" in any relevant way.
>
> Ah, so neither Aristotle nor Beckerman is an expert in theater.
neither are experts in profundity.
>
> Would you be able to provide me an example of someone who is
> an expert?
there *are no* experts in profundity. there are only people shouting
their opinions. some of us, however, realize that such opinions are
only binding to ourselves.
>
> (No, you wouldn't. Sorry, I'm just pulling your chain.)
>
> Running away from evidence that contradicts your point of view
> isn't very scientific of you.
>
>
>
> >> I have evidence. What do you have?
>
> > you dont have evidence. you have your opinions and the opinions of
> > others.
>
> The opinions of relevant experts is evidence.
no, they arent. opinions are never evidence, expert or otherwise.
statements of fact based on the direct evidence uttered by experts
could be considered a form of evidence, but you havent offered any of
those.
>
> Here's what you think of as evidence:
>
> > summary(m02bn)
>
<snip>
>
> > none of you can actually demonstrate any profundity
>
> It's not terribly difficult. People who go to the theater regularly
> have no trouble with it. The same goes for people who read serious
> literature.
im fully aware that pretentious airheads have no trouble at all
declaring that their personal opinions are binding on the rest of the
world.
>
> I take it you don't do either (but still have no difficulty making
> pronoucements on the topic).
just keep piling on the lies about me, moron.
>
> > - you
> > merely assert it and pretend your assertions are binding on everybody
> > else. exactly like religious people do.
>
> It would be convenient for you if that were the case. It's not.
thats exactly what you do. you claimed that shakespeare was more
profound than beckett. prove it.
Burkhard
and mu presuppositions from the word go can apply
Garamond Lethe
>> On 2009-07-29, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, I did. You asked for a specific insight from Ibsen, and I gave
>> >> >> >> you one. It was a rather pointless exercise since you haven't read
>> >> >> >> Ibsen and he's certainly not my favorite author, but you asked....
>>
>> >> >> > you gave nothing more than your opinion.
>>
>> >> >> Weren't you just complaining that I kept offering citations
>> >> >> instead of my own opinion?
>>
>> >> > nope, i complained that you failed to give answers to actual questions
>> >> > i asked. and you still have failed. i didnt ask your opinion about
>> >> > what was profound. i asked for the *actual* profundity.
>>
>> >> Could I borrow your profundity meter? I've not seen mine for a while,
>>
>> > then perhaps you should stop making assertions about profundity.
>>
>> Or maybe I should go to school for a few years and learn how
>> to observe it without the use of special equipment. Which I did.
>
> and maybe if you paid $1,000,000 to the scientology cult, youd learn
> how to get rid of your thetans.
Actually, people pay me to go to school. It's not a bad living.
> i mean they *could* be entirely full
> of shit, but do you really want to risk it? whats a mere million
> dollars in exchange for eternal peace?
There's the beginings of an interesting point there.
On the one hand you have Shakespeare, considered by most scholars
to be the best writer in English and possibly the best writer in
any language.
On the other hand you have L. Ron Hubbard.
You world view doesn't appear to be able to distinguish between
the two of them.
Mine can. Reliably.
>>
>> Since you haven't, maybe you should take your own advice.
>
> you have no idea where ive been, clown.
<grin>
"You" should be capitalized.
So should "I've" (and it needs an apostrophe).
I have a very good idea, based on your writing, how much schooling
you've had (and the level of your critical thinking abilities, too).
I've got a pretty good idea how many books you read a year, how much
television you watch, and how often you attend the theater.
Your words say a lot about you. Probably more than you intend.
> this is just another lie about
> me made up by you because you cant actually defend your position.
I seem to be doing pretty well, thanks.
>
>>
>> >> and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
>>
>> > none of the "experts" you cited had meters either.
>>
>> Yes! Exactly! And since you're not willing to discard the concept
>> altogether, that means there must be another, non-scientific way of
>> observing it.
>
> maybe there is no "it" to be observed, moron. maybe all you are doing
> is claiming that *your* personal opinion is binding on everybody else.
> prove that this isnt the case. show the profundity.
Your demands for more evidence would be a little more credible if you
read an commented on what I already provided.
>
>>
>> When was the last time you attended the theater?
>>
No answer?
>>
>> >> > no amount of
>> >> > you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
>> >> > share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
>>
>> >> And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
>>
>> > you are the one making claims. if you cant back them up, maybe you
>> > shouldnt make them.
>>
>> I gave you my evidence. My approach explains and predicts the
>> world that I participate in.
>
> you gave no evidence at all.
No, I have a distinct recollection that I did. I believe you snipped
it without comment.
> you gave your opinion, which was merely a
> repetition of the assertion. then you gave the opinions of others,
> which again, were merely repetitions of the assertion.
As I have a relevant degree and was reporting an observation, and
as the experts cited were reporting their personal observations,
and as you've not be able to suggest any alternate methods, I'm
satisfied with the evidence presented.
>
>>
>> Your approach can't explain art or literature.
>>
>> I think I prefer mine.
>
> you have no approach other than "make shit up and believe it, then
> claim that it is binding on everybody else."
The methods I cited were published in the peer-reviewed literature
and have been tested on audiences (who tend to get a little impatient
with incompetence).
It works.
Your approach.... can't distinguish between Shakespeare and L. Ron
Hubbard.
I still prefer mine.
> or, since we know you
> have very little of a mind of your own, "pick something somebody else
> made up and believe it, then claim that it is binding on everybody
> else."
Empirical testing is a great way of weeding out bad acting, bad writing,
and bad theories of art. I recommend it to you.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
>> >> your measurements?
>>
>> > no, i cant. but then, im not the one claiming anything to be profound.
>> > you are.
>>
>> And I have good reason to.
>
> no, you dont. you have good reason to think that something seems
> profound *to you.* but nobody gives a shit how things seem *to you.*
> *you* are nobody.
The authors of the last couple papers I reviewed really wish that
was true.
>
>>
>> >> Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
>>
>> > im saying you cant back up your assertions,
>>
>> Except for citing relevant experts as well as my own expert observations.
>
> dont make me laugh.
You've read Shakespeare, right? Ibsen? Beckett? Shaw?
>
>>
>> Not only is that sufficient, it's far more than you've managed to do.
>>
>> > so you should stop
>> > pretending they are binding on anybody but you.
>>
>> So what was the last book you read?
>>
>>
No answer?
>>
>> >> > just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
>> >> > opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
>>
>> >> Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
>> >> opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
>> >> this.
>>
>> > none of the people you cited have any way to calculate profundity.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>
> show me how they calculated it then.
Aristotle was the first to formalize this process in the _Poetics_.
For literature.... hey, haven't I given this list to you before?
Start with this:
Harold Bloom, _How to Read and Why_.
<q>
Harold Bloom's urgency in How to Read and Why may have much to
do with his age. He brackets his combative, inspiring manual
with the news that he is nearing 70 and hasn't time for the
mediocre. (One doubts that he ever did.) Nor will he countenance
such fashionable notions as the death of the author or abide
"the vagaries of our current counter-Puritanism" let alone
"ideological cheerleading." Successively exploring the short
story, poetry, the novel, and drama, Bloom illuminates both
the how and why of his title and points us in all the right
directions: toward the Romantics because they "startle us
out of our sleep-of-death into a more capacious sense of
life"; toward Austen, James, Proust; toward Thomas Mann,
Toni Morrison, and Cormac McCarthy; toward Cervantes and
Shakespeare (but of course!), Ibsen and Oscar Wilde.
</q>
(From Amazon).
>
>>
>> You've read the _Poetics_, perhaps? You've studied Beckerman?
>
> ill bet $100 there are no equations in any of these works showing how
> to calculate profundity.
Seeing as how I've read those works and you haven't, are you really sure
you want to make that bet? Wouldn't you like to at least crack open
Beckerman first and make sure you're not about to make an idiot of yourself?
(And while we're on the topic, how many equations were there in
_The Origin of Species_?)
>
>>
>> I can calculate (relative) profundity with no difficulty at all.
>> Shakespeare is more profound than Beckett, Shaw is more profound
>> than Kushner.
>
> prove it.
>
Well, let's start with the productions you've seen so we have a
common point of reference.
Which of those authors have you seen in performance recently?
Which of their works have your read?
>>
>> Going to school will let you do neat things like that.
>
> i guess, if you happen to go to a shitty school that only places value
> on statements uttered by the people running the school merely because
> they run the school.
?
>
>>
>> > they are therefore not "experts" in any relevant way.
>>
>> Ah, so neither Aristotle nor Beckerman is an expert in theater.
>
> neither are experts in profundity.
And I should believe you because....? Are you an expert? Do
you have any evidence for this? Have you read either author?
>
>>
>> Would you be able to provide me an example of someone who is
>> an expert?
>
> there *are no* experts in profundity.
And you know this.... how?
> there are only people shouting
> their opinions. some of us, however, realize that such opinions are
> only binding to ourselves.
Yet if I were to knock out a one-act play and you were to knock out
a one-act play, and they were to receive equivalent productions, I'd
bet a year's tuition that my play would be judged better than your
play by not only by the experts who saw but by audiences in general.
Empirical testing works. You need to avoid it.
>
>>
>> (No, you wouldn't. Sorry, I'm just pulling your chain.)
>>
>> Running away from evidence that contradicts your point of view
>> isn't very scientific of you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I have evidence. What do you have?
>>
>> > you dont have evidence. you have your opinions and the opinions of
>> > others.
>>
>> The opinions of relevant experts is evidence.
>
> no, they arent.
Why should I believe you?
Can you cite and expert... whoops, no, that's not going to work.
Can you give a convincing argument why this isn't the case?
> opinions are never evidence, expert or otherwise.
> statements of fact based on the direct evidence uttered by experts
> could be considered a form of evidence, but you havent offered any of
> those.
No, it doesn't look like you can.
My method works. Yours doesn't. I'll stick with what works.
>
>>
>> Here's what you think of as evidence:
>>
>> > summary(m02bn)
>>
><snip>
;-)
>>
>> > none of you can actually demonstrate any profundity
>>
>> It's not terribly difficult. People who go to the theater regularly
>> have no trouble with it. The same goes for people who read serious
>> literature.
>
> im fully aware that pretentious airheads have no trouble at all
> declaring that their personal opinions are binding on the rest of the
> world.
That's the nice thing about theater. You can take your theory, put
on a show, and see if it works.
>
>>
>> I take it you don't do either (but still have no difficulty making
>> pronoucements on the topic).
>
> just keep piling on the lies about me, moron.
Perhaps, just this once, you might want to gracefully admit that you
have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>>
>> > - you
>> > merely assert it and pretend your assertions are binding on everybody
>> > else. exactly like religious people do.
>>
>> It would be convenient for you if that were the case. It's not.
>
> thats exactly what you do. you claimed that shakespeare was more
> profound than beckett. prove it.
I'm happy to demonstrate it (proof is best left to the mathematicians;
since knowledge is tentative in both science and art, proof doesn't have
a place). What Shakespeare have you seen or read recently, and
what Beckett?
snex
translation: burkhard is a lying fuckbag.
i did not say or imply what you said i did. stop lying about me.
Burkhard
Just as an apropos. Ray, by his professed religious belief, should
display compassion, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. Snex, by
his professed, well, lets say world-view to be neutral, should display
rational, calm assessment of cold facts.
Yet strangely enough, they are also two of the most notorious gutter
mouths on TO, hurling insults and abuse as a matter of course. Rather
letting your respective teams down there, chaps....
snex
and on the third hand, we have a bunch of ancients claiming a virgin
gave birth.
>
> You world view doesn't appear to be able to distinguish between
> the two of them.
>
> Mine can. Reliably.
no, clown, it cant. you only pretend it can.
>
>
> >> Since you haven't, maybe you should take your own advice.
>
> > you have no idea where ive been, clown.
>
> <grin>
>
> "You" should be capitalized.
> So should "I've" (and it needs an apostrophe).
>
> I have a very good idea, based on your writing, how much schooling
> you've had (and the level of your critical thinking abilities, too).
> I've got a pretty good idea how many books you read a year, how much
> television you watch, and how often you attend the theater.
you havent the faintest idea about any of that, moron. but go ahead,
keep making up lies about me. anybody who reads these posts and
actually knows about my life offline will instantly know how credible
*you* are.
>
> Your words say a lot about you. Probably more than you intend.
>
> > this is just another lie about
> > me made up by you because you cant actually defend your position.
>
> I seem to be doing pretty well, thanks.
>
>
>
> >> >> and have had to fall back on expert opinion.
>
> >> > none of the "experts" you cited had meters either.
>
> >> Yes! Exactly! And since you're not willing to discard the concept
> >> altogether, that means there must be another, non-scientific way of
> >> observing it.
>
> > maybe there is no "it" to be observed, moron. maybe all you are doing
> > is claiming that *your* personal opinion is binding on everybody else.
> > prove that this isnt the case. show the profundity.
>
> Your demands for more evidence would be a little more credible if you
> read an commented on what I already provided.
i already did comment. you only gave your opinion and the opinions of
people who agree with you. i didnt ask for opinions, i asked for the
profundity itself.
>
> >> When was the last time you attended the theater?
>
> No answer?
>
>
>
> >> >> > no amount of
> >> >> > you asserting that it seems profound to you or quoting others who
> >> >> > share your opinion will suffice as evidence for that.
>
> >> >> And what will be evidence? Your profundity calipers?
>
> >> > you are the one making claims. if you cant back them up, maybe you
> >> > shouldnt make them.
>
> >> I gave you my evidence. My approach explains and predicts the
> >> world that I participate in.
>
> > you gave no evidence at all.
>
> No, I have a distinct recollection that I did. I believe you snipped
> it without comment.
no, you gave opinions. i didnt ask for opinions.
>
> > you gave your opinion, which was merely a
> > repetition of the assertion. then you gave the opinions of others,
> > which again, were merely repetitions of the assertion.
>
> As I have a relevant degree and was reporting an observation, and
> as the experts cited were reporting their personal observations,
> and as you've not be able to suggest any alternate methods, I'm
> satisfied with the evidence presented.
and thats why youre an idiot. you cant see how your personal opinion
can be anything but universally binding. typical arrogant and
pretentious douchebaggery.
>
> >> Your approach can't explain art or literature.
>
> >> I think I prefer mine.
>
> > you have no approach other than "make shit up and believe it, then
> > claim that it is binding on everybody else."
>
> The methods I cited were published in the peer-reviewed literature
> and have been tested on audiences (who tend to get a little impatient
> with incompetence).
i didnt ask for "methods." i asked for the profundity. im still
waiting for you to offer anything other than "it just is profound."
>
> It works.
>
> Your approach.... can't distinguish between Shakespeare and L. Ron
> Hubbard.
i havent even listed an approach, moron.
>
> I still prefer mine.
>
> > or, since we know you
> > have very little of a mind of your own, "pick something somebody else
> > made up and believe it, then claim that it is binding on everybody
> > else."
>
> Empirical testing is a great way of weeding out bad acting, bad writing,
> and bad theories of art. I recommend it to you.
i didnt ask about bad acting, writing, or art theories. i asked for
profundity. you havent provided any.
>
>
>
> >> >> Could you give me an example of actual profundity, complete with
> >> >> your measurements?
>
> >> > no, i cant. but then, im not the one claiming anything to be profound.
> >> > you are.
>
> >> And I have good reason to.
>
> > no, you dont. you have good reason to think that something seems
> > profound *to you.* but nobody gives a shit how things seem *to you.*
> > *you* are nobody.
>
> The authors of the last couple papers I reviewed really wish that
> was true.
more arrogant and pretentious douchebaggery. face it, moron, you
really are nobody and nobody gives a shit about your opinion of some
play you saw.
>
>
>
> >> >> Are you saying profundity doesn't exist?
>
> >> > im saying you cant back up your assertions,
>
> >> Except for citing relevant experts as well as my own expert observations.
>
> > dont make me laugh.
>
> You've read Shakespeare, right? Ibsen? Beckett? Shaw?
>
>
>
> >> Not only is that sufficient, it's far more than you've managed to do.
>
> >> > so you should stop
> >> > pretending they are binding on anybody but you.
>
> >> So what was the last book you read?
>
> No answer?
>
>
>
> >> >> > just like religious people, you suffer from the delusion that your
> >> >> > opinions are binding on everybody else. you all need to get over it.
>
> >> >> Just like scientists, I place a great deal of stock in expert
> >> >> opinion and observation. Citations are one way of communicating
> >> >> this.
>
> >> > none of the people you cited have any way to calculate profundity.
>
> >> And you know this how?
>
> > show me how they calculated it then.
>
<snip waste of space>
you provided no calculations or ways to calculate anything.
>
> >> You've read the _Poetics_, perhaps? You've studied Beckerman?
>
> > ill bet $100 there are no equations in any of these works showing how
> > to calculate profundity.
>
> Seeing as how I've read those works and you haven't, are you really sure
> you want to make that bet? Wouldn't you like to at least crack open
> Beckerman first and make sure you're not about to make an idiot of yourself?
if you were so sure, youd have taken the bet. the fact that you have
read these books and did not instantly take the bet means you either
dont want $100 or you know you are full of shit. its still on the
table. $100. any time.
>
> (And while we're on the topic, how many equations were there in
> _The Origin of Species_?)
>
>
>
> >> I can calculate (relative) profundity with no difficulty at all.
> >> Shakespeare is more profound than Beckett, Shaw is more profound
> >> than Kushner.
>
> > prove it.
>
> Well, let's start with the productions you've seen so we have a
> common point of reference.
no, lets not. you demonstrating profundity has nothing to do with what
ive seen or not seen. are you going to back up your assertion or arent
you?
>
> Which of those authors have you seen in performance recently?
> Which of their works have your read?
>
>
>
> >> Going to school will let you do neat things like that.
>
> > i guess, if you happen to go to a shitty school that only places value
> > on statements uttered by the people running the school merely because
> > they run the school.
>
> ?
problems with the english language?
>
>
>
> >> > they are therefore not "experts" in any relevant way.
>
> >> Ah, so neither Aristotle nor Beckerman is an expert in theater.
>
> > neither are experts in profundity.
>
> And I should believe you because....? Are you an expert? Do
> you have any evidence for this? Have you read either author?
i dont care if you believe me or not. but the only reason you believe
*them* is because they claim to be said experts. they certainly have
not shown any equations for calculating profundity. what a sad little
world you live in.
>
>
>
> >> Would you be able to provide me an example of someone who is
> >> an expert?
>
> > there *are no* experts in profundity.
>
> And you know this.... how?
profundity is *a fucking opinion.* there is no such thing as an expert
in a personal opinion.
>
> > there are only people shouting
> > their opinions. some of us, however, realize that such opinions are
> > only binding to ourselves.
>
> Yet if I were to knock out a one-act play and you were to knock out
> a one-act play, and they were to receive equivalent productions, I'd
> bet a year's tuition that my play would be judged better than your
> play by not only by the experts who saw but by audiences in general.
and how is that relevant? vincent van gogh sold only a single painting
in his lifetime. his work was called crap his whole life, and only
became sought out after he was dead.
one can come up with innumerable examples of artists whose work was
panned by critics and shunned by the public, only to be declared
priceless later on.
>
> Empirical testing works. You need to avoid it.
>
>
>
> >> (No, you wouldn't. Sorry, I'm just pulling your chain.)
>
> >> Running away from evidence that contradicts your point of view
> >> isn't very scientific of you.
>
> >> >> I have evidence. What do you have?
>
> >> > you dont have evidence. you have your opinions and the opinions of
> >> > others.
>
> >> The opinions of relevant experts is evidence.
>
> > no, they arent.
>
> Why should I believe you?
why should you believe people who call themselves experts, when they
present nothing but their assertion of their own expertise?
>
> Can you cite and expert... whoops, no, that's not going to work.
>
> Can you give a convincing argument why this isn't the case?
i already did moron. its RIGHT BELOW.
>
> > opinions are never evidence, expert or otherwise.
> > statements of fact based on the direct evidence uttered by experts
> > could be considered a form of evidence, but you havent offered any of
> > those.
>
> No, it doesn't look like you can.
>
> My method works. Yours doesn't. I'll stick with what works.
i have no idea what the fuck you are even talking about.
you havent presented any method, you havent presented any meaningful
definition for "works."
all youve done is asserted that ibsen is profound. THATS ALL YOU HAVE
DONE! thats not a method, dumbshit.
>
>
>
> >> Here's what you think of as evidence:
>
> >> > summary(m02bn)
>
> ><snip>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> >> > none of you can actually demonstrate any profundity
>
> >> It's not terribly difficult. People who go to the theater regularly
> >> have no trouble with it. The same goes for people who read serious
> >> literature.
>
> > im fully aware that pretentious airheads have no trouble at all
> > declaring that their personal opinions are binding on the rest of the
> > world.
>
> That's the nice thing about theater. You can take your theory, put
> on a show, and see if it works.
and you can put britney spears on one stage and the london symphony
orchestra on another stage, and count the people willing to pay $100
to get in. but whats that going to prove?
>
>
>
> >> I take it you don't do either (but still have no difficulty making
> >> pronoucements on the topic).
>
> > just keep piling on the lies about me, moron.
>
> Perhaps, just this once, you might want to gracefully admit that you
> have no idea what you're talking about.
or you could just stop lying about me. but people like you are
attracted to lying like moths to a flame.
>
>
>
> >> > - you
> >> > merely assert it and pretend your assertions are binding on everybody
> >> > else. exactly like religious people do.
>
> >> It would be convenient for you if that were the case. It's not.
>
> > thats exactly what you do. you claimed that shakespeare was more
> > profound than beckett. prove it.
>
> I'm happy to demonstrate it (proof is best left to the mathematicians;
> since knowledge is tentative in both science and art, proof doesn't have
> a place). What Shakespeare have you seen or read recently, and
> what Beckett?
asking me what ive seen or read recently is not a demonstration. youve
failed.
snex
i have not professed such a worldview. but what i did do is give you
plenty of chances to answer my questions in a rational, calm way -
with facts. you instead chose to evade, obfuscate, and lie. so at this
point, i have no reason to treat you with any respect whatsoever. i
will not respect liars.