if we can formulate god, does that mean god exists?
The RSF Group
imagining. what we imagine doesn't necessarily exist. suppose i
imagine a 100 ft rabbit made of chocolate that does the charleston and
pees gatorade. i mean what's that? it aint nothing.
but, just like we can formulate the highest number which is infinite,
we can formulate god.
how? it depends on how we define god. now, i think it's safe to say
god as in the strictly religious sense doesn't exist. zeus, orisis,
odin, jehovah, etc.
but, we can define god as the ultimate source of power or the ultimate
source of truth. or, everything summed up as one unified truth.
thru science, we can only focus on a piece of truth here and there--in
physics, chemistry, biology, etc. but, what is all the truth summed up
together? not only in our universe in the world beyond our universe?
this truth beyond our grasp is god. it's not only a mystery but a
certainty--that there must be unified all-encompassing truth to the
universe(s).
if we can formulate god in this way, we might as well say god does
exist, just as the infinitude of the highest number exists. we can
never get there but the idea of such does have validity.
the unified truth of all things, that would be god.
Zadok
"The RSF Group" <> wrote in message ...
> but, we can define god as the ultimate source of power or the ultimate
> source of truth. or, everything summed up as one unified truth.
> thru science, we can only focus on a piece of truth here and there--in
> physics, chemistry, biology, etc. but, what is all the truth summed up
> together? not only in our universe in the world beyond our universe?
> this truth beyond our grasp is god. it's not only a mystery but a
> certainty--that there must be unified all-encompassing truth to the
> universe(s).
> if we can formulate god in this way, we might as well say god does
> exist, just as the infinitude of the highest number exists. we can
> never get there but the idea of such does have validity.
>
> the unified truth of all things, that would be god.
By that same logic, the unified truth of all things is the Boogie Man!!
You simply take an unknown, and try and define it, but not only do you try
to define it, you try to name it!!
You would be farther ahead, to be like the ancients!! Worship the SUN GOD.
See that way, you can see God, feel God (heat), and know that without God,
you will die (earth freezes).
But I guess you prefer that imaginery infinitude, that you can name whatever
you want, and believe a book of fables.
Interesting choice!!
Dr Ridley-Duff
The RSF Group wrote:
> but, we can define god as the ultimate source of power or the ultimate
> exist, just as the infinitude of the highest number exists. we can
> never get there but the idea of such does have validity.
>
But only to those that have 'faith'. God exists subjectively, but not
objectively (for those that believe there is an 'objective' world out
there). God is real in social science, but a fantasy in physical
science. We can live with that, can't we?
Rory
knucmo
The RSF Group wrote:
You beg the question by supposing something such as unified field
theory or unified truth is indeed possible with all sciences and others
pursuits geared towards the ultimate truth. I am sorry, but that is
not going to work, if only since not all disciplines use the scientific
method. Comte tried the same, and his system was utterly flawed.
Moreover, God is meaningless. Our conception of a god is derived from
objects or beings in space and time so it is impossible to make sense
of an immaterial being as existing outside of space and time.
Furthermore, the personality of a God who is caring, loving or even
encompassing such attributes as omniscience, is similar to our thoughts
and attitudes about matters. Such thoughts however must be dependent
on a functioning brain and body, otherwise without such attitudes we
cannot conceive of our personality, let alone God's. It is illogical
to speak of such things as a God without presupposing such
characteristics as consciousness, which themselves depend on a material
entity (i.e. The brain produces such feelings). This version of God is
a mere anthropomorphism.
Dr Ridley-Duff
knucmo wrote:
> > if we can formulate god in this way, we might as well say god does
> > exist, just as the infinitude of the highest number exists. we can
> > never get there but the idea of such does have validity.
> >
> > the unified truth of all things, that would be god.
>
> You beg the question by supposing something such as unified field
> theory or unified truth is indeed possible with all sciences and others
> pursuits geared towards the ultimate truth. I am sorry, but that is
> not going to work, if only since not all disciplines use the scientific
> method. Comte tried the same, and his system was utterly flawed.
There is a multitude of "scientific methods", not just one, which
complicates matters even further.
> Moreover, God is meaningless. Our conception of a god is derived from
> objects or beings in space and time so it is impossible to make sense
> of an immaterial being as existing outside of space and time.
The same, of course, can be said of "the scientific method". It is a
conception in the mind of those committed to understanding the world in
a particular way. Science - in that sense - is as meaningless (or
meaningful) as God. Nevertheless, I have more faith in scientific
methods than God when it comes to the search for truths about the world
in which I live.
> Furthermore, the personality of a God who is caring, loving or even
> encompassing such attributes as omniscience, is similar to our thoughts
> and attitudes about matters.
Yes. Strangely enough each group of people with a religious outlook
draw pictures of God (or their Gods) in their own image. When God
variously appears with or without a beard, with different skin colours,
lengths of hair etc. etc. then it is clear we shape God in our image,
rather than the other way around. But then, how would we ever know we
are right?
> Such thoughts however must be dependent
> on a functioning brain and body, otherwise without such attitudes we
> cannot conceive of our personality, let alone God's. It is illogical
> to speak of such things as a God without presupposing such
> characteristics as consciousness, which themselves depend on a material
> entity (i.e. The brain produces such feelings).
Everything stated here applied equally to the "scientific method" :)
Science is a faith too and each of us must make our judgement as to
which system of beliefs help us discover the truths we seek.
Rory
Dr Ridley-Duff
knucmo wrote:
> > if we can formulate god in this way, we might as well say god does
> > exist, just as the infinitude of the highest number exists. we can
> > never get there but the idea of such does have validity.
> >
> > the unified truth of all things, that would be god.
>
> You beg the question by supposing something such as unified field
> theory or unified truth is indeed possible with all sciences and others
> pursuits geared towards the ultimate truth. I am sorry, but that is
> not going to work, if only since not all disciplines use the scientific
> method. Comte tried the same, and his system was utterly flawed.
There is a multitude of "scientific methods", not just one, which
complicates matters even further.
> Moreover, God is meaningless. Our conception of a god is derived from
> objects or beings in space and time so it is impossible to make sense
> of an immaterial being as existing outside of space and time.
The same, of course, can be said of "the scientific method". It is a
conception in the mind of those committed to understanding the world in
a particular way. Science - in that sense - is as meaningless (or
meaningful) as God. Nevertheless, I have more faith in scientific
methods than God when it comes to the search for truths about the world
in which I live.
> Furthermore, the personality of a God who is caring, loving or even
> encompassing such attributes as omniscience, is similar to our thoughts
> and attitudes about matters.
Yes. Strangely enough each group of people with a religious outlook
draw pictures of God (or their Gods) in their own image. When God
variously appears with or without a beard, with different skin colours,
lengths of hair etc. etc. then it is clear we shape God in our image,
rather than the other way around. But then, how would we ever know we
are right?
> Such thoughts however must be dependent
> on a functioning brain and body, otherwise without such attitudes we
> cannot conceive of our personality, let alone God's. It is illogical
> to speak of such things as a God without presupposing such
> characteristics as consciousness, which themselves depend on a material
> entity (i.e. The brain produces such feelings).
Everything stated here applied equally to the "scientific method" :)
knucmo
Dr Ridley-Duff wrote:
> There is a multitude of "scientific methods", not just one, which
> complicates matters even further.
I refer to the general method that scientists use to acquire knowledge
about phenomena as well as the elucidation and testing of previous
knowledge based upon observable evidence.
> The same, of course, can be said of "the scientific method". It is a
> conception in the mind of those committed to understanding the world in
> a particular way. Science - in that sense - is as meaningless (or
> meaningful) as God. Nevertheless, I have more faith in scientific
> methods than God when it comes to the search for truths about the world
> in which I live.
Your faith is not misplaced, but science is not, nor is it ever a
question of faith. It is a question of reason, not blind trust. If we
still proceeded from faith, then we would still rely upon religion for
the answers to all our questions about phenomena. Matters of value
cannot be derived from matters of fact either.
> > Such thoughts however must be dependent
> > on a functioning brain and body, otherwise without such attitudes we
> > cannot conceive of our personality, let alone God's. It is illogical
> > to speak of such things as a God without presupposing such
> > characteristics as consciousness, which themselves depend on a material
> > entity (i.e. The brain produces such feelings).
>
> Everything stated here applied equally to the "scientific method" :)
>
> Science is a faith too and each of us must make our judgement as to
> which system of beliefs help us discover the truths we seek.
See above point. Science is not a faith. A subject's object of faith
is not something that cannot be proven by logical deduction or known
objectively, something which is the case with science. (Descartes's
ontological "proofs" were shown to be a sham by subsequent
philosophers.)
People do not kill in the name of science, as did Islamic Fascists,
Nazis, Christian crusaders blindly convinced of the nobility of their
cause.
> Rory
Malcolm
nucmo" <stevej...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> People do not kill in the name of science, as did Islamic Fascists,
> Nazis, Christian crusaders blindly convinced of the nobility of their
> cause.
>
People have been killed in the course of scientific experiments.
Most not deliberately, but it has happened.
It is rare for people to be killed for refusing to assent to a scientific
proposition, though an exception was Lysenko in the Soviet Union. Generally
this is because real scientists haven't had a strong motive for so doing.
Animal rights extremists, for example, can be dealt with by the prisons.
They don't threaten the establishment, of which Univeristy academics are a
part.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
clifff...@yahoo.com
Dr Ridley-Duff wrote:
>
> But only to those that have 'faith'. God exists subjectively, but not
> objectively (for those that believe there is an 'objective' world out
> there). God is real in social science, but a fantasy in physical
> science.
But there would be no science without God. Yes, God has no
place in human science studies because the concept is not
something that can be tested or whose existence can ever
be *proven*. The concept goes beyond the scope of the
science we can ever know. I believe that this is part of the
grand design of everything space and time.
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
----Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
knucmo
Malcolm wrote:
> nucmo" <stevej...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > People do not kill in the name of science, as did Islamic Fascists,
> > Nazis, Christian crusaders blindly convinced of the nobility of their
> > cause.
> >
> People have been killed in the course of scientific experiments.
> Most not deliberately, but it has happened.
Ah yes of course, you have reminded me, many have been DELIBERATELY
murdered by scientists. Think no further back than the Nazi
experiments during the Second World War, performed at such places as
Hartheim Castle. Hardly though, in the name of scientific ethical
practice or reason.
Dr Ridley-Duff
knucmo wrote:
> I refer to the general method that scientists use to acquire knowledge
> about phenomena as well as the elucidation and testing of previous
> knowledge based upon observable evidence.
There is no 'general method' although experimental research is dominant
in the physical sciences. In the social sciences, the techniques vary
according to the question being asked and each are as rigorous and
scientific as the other (when done properly). You cannot, for
example, hypothesis-test the question:
"What are the psychological impacts of the government's new anti-terror
laws on civil society?"
For this question you could choose from a variety of scientific
methods:
1) Phenomenological approach (investigation of the way people interpret
the changes through closely analysed group/individual interviewing)...
2) A grounded theory approach (similar to above, but much more
iterative and oriented towards the development of theory)
3) Critical ethnography (i.e. anthropological investigation of the
impacts of the law in different social settings)
4) Post-modernist (critical analysis of the rhetoric behind, and
rhetorical responses to, the government's legislation in order to
understand the construction of social power)....
Each of the above are rigorous scientific methodologies in their own
right - but not "general" in the sense you mean.
> Your faith is not misplaced, but science is not, nor is it ever a
> question of faith.
Of course it is. You have to presume there is a real world that can be
investigated before you can investigate it. That world cannot be
proved to exist without making the assumption that it already exists!
> Descartes's ontological "proofs" were shown to be a sham by subsequent
> philosophers.
See Kant for the opposite view. We cannot ever "prove" there is an
objective world so the argument cuts both ways. As Kant pointed out,
we can only ever know the world through our senses, and our senses
cannot ever be proved to be seeing the "real" world. See philosophers
like Kuhn - and his paradigmitic understanding of scientific change -
if you want to learn more about this perpetual conundrum.
> People do not kill in the name of science, as did Islamic Fascists,
> Nazis, Christian crusaders blindly convinced of the nobility of their
> cause.
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Were the scientists who worked to produce the
nuclear bomb unclear about the uses to which their findings would be
put? "Science" has been perverted just as "God" has been perverted
many times over. Scientists do kill (both animals and people) to
advance knowledge. If they did not, why would there be a growing
number of bodies that control the ethicality of science?
Rory
Mani Deli
>But there would be no science without God.
Or Oxigen
> Yes, God has no
>place in human science studies because the concept is not
>something that can be tested or whose existence can ever
>be *proven*. The concept goes beyond the scope of the
>science we can ever know.
Just like Santa Claus!
>I believe that this is part of the
>grand design of everything space and time.
I don't.
God is the immature man's Santa Claus
knucmo
> knucmo wrote:
> > I refer to the general method that scientists use to acquire knowledge
> > about phenomena as well as the elucidation and testing of previous
> > knowledge based upon observable evidence.
>
> There is no 'general method' although experimental research is dominant
> in the physical sciences.
I referred implicitly to empirical research above, but since you didn't
see that, you have now digressed irrelevantly into the question of
postmodernism's validity as a science.
> In the social sciences, the techniques vary
> according to the question being asked and each are as rigorous and
> scientific as the other (when done properly). You cannot, for
> example, hypothesis-test the question:
>
> "What are the psychological impacts of the government's new anti-terror
> laws on civil society?"
This is political or psychological question. If it is psychological,
then it is possible that the proposition is capable of being shown true
or false.
Thus it is not falsifiable or verifiable, thus it is not a physically
scientific question. Ideologies such as psychoanalysis, Marxism and
other such disciplines which make the claim to science were shown by
Popper to be guilty of not being tested by scientific experiment and
thus debunking their aspirations to be a science. This doesn't
invalidate them, but the idea itself does not present itself as an
opportunity to be disproven.
> For this question you could choose from a variety of scientific
> methods:
>
> 1) Phenomenological approach (investigation of the way people interpret
> the changes through closely analysed group/individual interviewing)...
Phenomenology had a clear hostility to the sciences. Husserl wanted a
philosophy which would be more cautious about the perception of
phenomena and avoided what he saw as natural science "psychologism".
It was postulated as an alternative to the scientific approach.
> 2) A grounded theory approach (similar to above, but much more
> iterative and oriented towards the development of theory)
If you mean theory in a scientific sense, and that is, the construction
of models about reality that can be experimented upon and potentially
disproven as a hypothesis then yes, it does have a claim to being a
science. But if not, then it is not.
> 3) Critical ethnography (i.e. anthropological investigation of the
> impacts of the law in different social settings)
>
> 4) Post-modernist (critical analysis of the rhetoric behind, and
> rhetorical responses to, the government's legislation in order to
> understand the construction of social power)....
None of which are relevant to the scientific method I was talking about
nor is post-modernism a science. Indeed, postmodernism itself talks of
using "rhetorical strategies" to respond to criticisms by such critics
Sokal and Bricmont. Rhetoric is certainly not a reliable way of
attaining knowledge, and this was shown by Plato thousands of years
ago. Postmodernism's adherents have a very clear opposition to science
(Heidegger for one). Furthermore their meaning of critical is far
different to say, Kant's approach to the meaning of critical. By
critical it is meant (in a postmodernist sense) that they are
investigating power relationships in sciences (indeed, according to
some postmodernists, all science is a question of power and
postmodernists use ad hominem attacks such as "Dead white males" to
dismiss an important tradition of science on the basis of race) or
indulging in textual analysis (see Deconstruction). Rorty, himself a
postmodernist has indeed repudiated the whole concept of an
epistemology (question-beggingly) and embraces a relativism instead
which is antithetical to science or philosophy in general. An
interesting thing about this is that Rorty's very assertion of a
relativistic world makes the same claim that an absolutist would about
the world (in that relativism holds absolutely true), so his claim is
inherently contradictory.
> Each of the above are rigorous scientific methodologies in their own
> right - but not "general" in the sense you mean.
! None of them are as rigorous as scientific experiment. In fact,
most of the methods above are often tainted by a Marxist or neo-Marxist
bias when you look at the work of its practioners. It is no surprise
they are obsessed with "power relationships".
> > Your faith is not misplaced, but science is not, nor is it ever a
> > question of faith.
>
> Of course it is. You have to presume there is a real world that can be
> investigated before you can investigate it.
The world is empirically real. If the world isn't empirically real,
then you are not directly related to yourself in any way shape or form
- you are basically nothing empirically speaking - an impossible
position to hold. Surely, if you have read Kant, as you assert in the
post, then you will know that the world is empirically real because
that is what our forms of intution tell us. And it is not a
presupposition either, for it is impossible to think of the world in
other way than what sensory apparatus we have with us already.
Things-in-themselves can be possibly known, but cannot be known as
actually. If you want to repudiate the empirically real world, then
obviously with it, you will want to repudiate the sciences and all
other synthetic a priori knowledge. And I would not be surprised,
given your namechecking of postmodernism above.
> That world cannot be
> proved to exist without making the assumption that it already exists!
Of course, the ordinary world as we know it is far from how we
experience it commonsensically, as shown by experiments by quantum
physicists (Schrodinger's cat, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and
the Principle of Complementarity.) I do not deny that all, neither do
scientists for that matter, who are trying to find out, as best as they
can,
> > Descartes's ontological "proofs" were shown to be a sham by subsequent
> > philosophers.
>
> See Kant for the opposite view.
I am familiar with Kantian metaphysics, clearly you are not if you
think that he endorsed Descartes's ontological proofs. Kant wrote a
treatise called "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a
Demonstration of the Existence of God" which effectively criticised
cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God.
Instead he proposed a transcendental argument for a God.
> We cannot ever "prove" there is an
> objective world so the argument cuts both ways.
As Kant pointed out,
> we can only ever know the world through our senses, and our senses
> cannot ever be proved to be seeing the "real" world.
Kant still allowed for objective knowledge, he is not a subjectivist,
unlike the postmodernists you mention who fundamentally see knowledge
as governed by matters of race, class or gender, or perhaps as a social
construction. This again constitutes a misreading of Kant. The
phenomena constitute the world as only we can experience it, thus
setting a limit on human knowledge.
See philosophers
> like Kuhn - and his paradigmitic understanding of scientific change -
> if you want to learn more about this perpetual conundrum.
It is not a conundrum for Kant as his theory allows for the sciences
and mathematics. The postulates of geometry are synthetic a priori.
> > People do not kill in the name of science, as did Islamic Fascists,
> > Nazis, Christian crusaders blindly convinced of the nobility of their
> > cause.
>
> Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Were the scientists who worked to produce the
> nuclear bomb unclear about the uses to which their findings would be
> put?
No, they were not unclear about their research project, but they
themselves did not drop the bombs, unlike the Islamic terrorists who
flew a plane into the World Trade Center convinced passionately of the
righteousness of their creed. Anyone's teachings can be put to bad
use, but that does not always implicate the originator of the theory
whatsoever.
"Science" has been perverted just as "God" has been perverted
> many times over.
God is not part of any scientific theory, and thus, neither is faith.
Again, this is a distinction made by Kant whom you claim to have read,
but I continue to doubt whether this is the case at all. Kant
advocated empirical realism, which is separate from the idea of a God.
The idea of a God in Kant's system is part of his morality, not his
approach to the sciences.
Scientists do kill (both animals and people) to
> advance knowledge.
I did not deny expressly anywhere that animals are killed in the name
of scientific research. Nor did I, anywhere else advocate a
non-ethical component in science. But you conflate, again, faith with
knowledge. This does not vindicate science's "crimes" per se, but if
people are killed in science it is to advance knowledge. If people are
killed by a religious fundamentalist in the name of Allah, this is to
spread faith. They are totally different, for the reasons I have shown
you already, but which you like to ignore. Of course, scientists
knowingly murdered Jews during the Nazi regime, primarily for the cause
of Nazism rather than knowledge, rather than in the name of scientific
rationality of reason.
knucmo
> 4) Post-modernist (critical analysis of the rhetoric behind, and
> rhetorical responses to, the government's legislation in order to
> understand the construction of social power)....
Yes, exactly this demonstrates my point perfectly. If the government
constructs social power through rhetoric (a dubious claim in itself,
but for the sake of argument we shall let it hold) then what do you
postmodernists do to solve the problem? You shout back at them, in
resplendent tu quoque fashion ("rhetorical responses to"), rather than
use reason or demonstrate why the government is wrong with rationality.
A brilliant example of postmodernism's hostility to science is
demonstrated in this quote:
"Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the
ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics,
third-world peoples (Spiro 1996)."
Not only does the above beg the question ("Since objectivity is an
illusion") but it demonstrates perfectly how pomo's see all science as
power relationships, which allows them to repudiate hard-working
scientist's contributions to any scientific field. Instead, the Pomo's
argue for spirituality and irrationality. Science then, is simply a
subjectivist view, along with all other disciplines. Nevertheless, it
is quite beyond me as to why any religions, which are just as
irrational as science according to postmodernism, haven't produced any
advances in medicine, chemistry, biology, or space related matters,
which undoubtedly the pomo is hostile to.
Dr Ridley-Duff
> > 4) Post-modernist (critical analysis of the rhetoric behind, and
> > rhetorical responses to, the government's legislation in order to
> > understand the construction of social power)....
>
> Yes, exactly this demonstrates my point perfectly. If the government
> constructs social power through rhetoric (a dubious claim in itself,
> but for the sake of argument we shall let it hold) then what do you
> postmodernists do to solve the problem? You shout back at them, in
> resplendent tu quoque fashion ("rhetorical responses to"), rather than
> use reason or demonstrate why the government is wrong with rationality.
> A brilliant example of postmodernism's hostility to science is
> demonstrated in this quote:
I'm not a postmodernist (I consider myself a critical realist) but for
the moment let me advocate their point of view. They would argue that
all discourses (and science is one discourse) is rooted in power
interests. The goal of postmodernist researchers is to unravel the
power interests that underpin particular rhethorical discourses (i.e.
particular constructions of rationality). This is - in my view - an
entirely legitimate exercise and can be done in extremely rigourous and
scientific ways through narrative and discourse analysis techniques.
Science serves interests (this is me as a critical realist talking).
Science is not, and never is, neutral. We might argue that some
scientific advances serve everyone, but I imagine you (or anyone) would
be challenged to find any advance that benefits all people equally.
All advances, in science as anywhere else, benefit different members of
society in unequal measure and it is reasonable to examine the power
that is gained/lost when particular scientific (or political)
"progress" is made. It is also reasonable to explore howo social
relationships change as scientific advances (or claims) affect the way
we reproduce ourselves.
> "Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the
> ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics,
> third-world peoples (Spiro 1996)."
Control of science, and the products of science, creates groups of
powerful people. Those who control it - not necessarily deliberately -
create power imbalances. Oppression is not necessarily deliberate, it
may be an unintended outcome, but it is possible to investigate and
measure such impacts through both quantitative and qualitative
techniques.
> Pomo's argue for spirituality and irrationality. Science then, is simply a
> subjectivist view, along with all other disciplines.
Yes - science is a subjectivist view (each scientific approach has
different assumptions regarding truth so there is no way to argue -
successfully - that 'science' is objective). If science reaches a
point where there is only one valid method and its techniques become
incontestable, then it has become a religion! Science is only science
(just as a democracy is only a democracy) so long as its underlying
tenets are subject to debate and contestation.
I don't agreed that "pomos" argue for spirituality and irrationality.
I would argue that they show precisely how different spritualities,
rationalities (and irrationalities) come into being, develop, and
change society. A good postmodern study does not advocate for one or
other point of view - it simply lays bear the power interests that
underpin different arguments (rationalities). Unfortunately,
postmodernists do get political, but that is to the detriment of their
science, not to its benefit. Popperian / positivist researchers, of
course, also get political - the only difference is that the
researchers/scientist don't admit, or don't investigate, the politics
of their own work!
Rory
Rory
knucmo
Dr Ridley-Duff wrote:
> knucmo wrote:
> > > 4) Post-modernist (critical analysis of the rhetoric behind, and
> > > rhetorical responses to, the government's legislation in order to
> > > understand the construction of social power)....
> >
> > Yes, exactly this demonstrates my point perfectly. If the government
> > constructs social power through rhetoric (a dubious claim in itself,
> > but for the sake of argument we shall let it hold) then what do you
> > postmodernists do to solve the problem? You shout back at them, in
> > resplendent tu quoque fashion ("rhetorical responses to"), rather than
> > use reason or demonstrate why the government is wrong with rationality.
> > A brilliant example of postmodernism's hostility to science is
> > demonstrated in this quote:
>
> I'm not a postmodernist (I consider myself a critical realist) but for
> the moment let me advocate their point of view. They would argue that
> all discourses (and science is one discourse) is rooted in power
> interests.
I see a parallel between this and the "personal is the political"
belief. If science really is tainted by power bias, then the persons
themselves making these criticisms must be, ad necessitas,
ideologically pure and politically innocent. But the persons making
such views are guilty of a bias against science in the first place,
thus logically contradicting themselves. Plus, as I have already said,
most of these postmodernist critics subscribe to Marxist or Neo-Marxist
views, which still probably has a disdain for the pursuits of the
bourgeoisie. The Marxist can rightfully snort, if their beliefs are
determined by their class, and they are an oppressive class, then we,
the proletariat can dismiss their contributions to society, and
eventually overthrow them.
> The goal of postmodernist researchers is to unravel the
> power interests that underpin particular rhethorical discourses
Whereas postmodernism could be considered a rhetorical or sophistic
"discourse", science certainly is not. If Einstein wanted to show why
Bohr's theories of quantum physics were wrong, then he would have to do
it by using rationality to either show invalid arguments, false
premises, contradictions or paradoxes (e. g. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
paradox). In other words, objectively with a fair presentation of the
argument in question.
> (i.e.
> particular constructions of rationality). This is - in my view - an
> entirely legitimate exercise and can be done in extremely rigourous and
> scientific ways through narrative and discourse analysis techniques.
It begs the question by assuming again, falsely, that all truths are
socially constructed. You make the mistake of assuming that the
endeavours of a scientist and the publications that he releases are
indeed, emblematic of his class. Thus a scientist's position are,
according to this position, not reflective of their endeavours, but the
cause of such endeavours. As a result, the postmodernist can conclude
that as a result science is without objectivity and then proceed to
analysing who says exactly what. For, unlike modern individualistic
systems which value not who says it but what is actually said, the
postmodernists simply believe that it is not important what is said but
who says it (i. e. similarity to Marxist theory of class
conflict/enemies). This allows the pomo's to handily dismiss science
as something which contributes to the incidence of rape in capitalist
society, a crime which female lab technicians all over the world would
be rightfully appalled at being accused of such a thing.
> Control of science, and the products of science, creates groups of
> powerful people. Those who control it - not necessarily deliberately -
> create power imbalances. Oppression is not necessarily deliberate, it
> may be an unintended outcome, but it is possible to investigate and
> measure such impacts through both quantitative and qualitative
> techniques.
It creates a plentitude of those who prosper, yes. But again, I can
see where this is ending up; the wealthy in society oppress the poor
through exploitation, a disputable idea.
> Yes - science is a subjectivist view
> (each scientific approach has
> different assumptions regarding truth so there is no way to argue -
> successfully - that 'science' is objective).
No, because some scientific approaches have been proven to be better
than others. For instance, the laws of classical mechanics have been
overturned by advances in special relativity and quantum physics.
Thus, there is a approach to science that is based upon observable
objects, that is undistorted by personal biases. And, unlike you,
scientists don't think of the truth as a means to oppress others, they
all approach the truth, that is, conformity to reality or fact, in a
scientific manner.
> If science reaches a
> point where there is only one valid method and its techniques become
> incontestable, then it has become a religion!
And that was not something I argued for, science's methods aren't
incontestable at all, but neither are the criticisms of the Pomo's.
> Science is only science
> (just as a democracy is only a democracy) so long as its underlying
> tenets are subject to debate and contestation.
Thus, they become logical and rational disciplines, and the theories
which manage to repel or rebut criticism endure as rational models for
reality.
>
> I don't agreed that "pomos" argue for spirituality and irrationality.
Given their advocation of rhetoric, dismissal of mathematics and
science I would say this is a fair accusation.
> I would argue that they show precisely how different spritualities,
> rationalities (and irrationalities) come into being, develop, and
> change society.
Science has changed society for the better.
> A good postmodern study does not advocate for one or
> other point of view
Thus it is relativist (in a philosophical sense), but in a
contradictory manner. It simply assumes that their view (the view of
discovering power systems in human pursuits) is the best view to look
at all other possible views. But this subtle strategy will not slip
past a critical thinker, because they will realise that this
"relativist" view is actually an absolute claim as to which view is
best.
> - it simply lays bear the power interests that
> underpin different arguments (rationalities). Unfortunately,
> postmodernists do get political
This is not unfortunate at all for philosophers to not get political.
In fact, most of them do (Locke, Mill, Aristotle, Plato, Bentham,
Hobbes).
> but that is to the detriment of their
> science, not to its benefit.
As I have said already, postmodernism has none of the rigour, nor do
any of its results have a similarity to reality.
> Popperian / positivist researchers, of
> course, also get political - the only difference is that the
> researchers/scientist don't admit, or don't investigate, the politics
> of their own work!
This is frequently untrue, for many scientists such as Einstein laid
their political beliefs bare in books. But of course, this whole
argument of yours is based upon a principle that science is used,
knowingly or not, to oppress women and other categories.