Reason and Science in Danger.
- This topic has 335 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m afraid that you’ve come too late to the discussion, twc.
By about 200 years, sadly.
If this response seems harsh to other readers, I’ve tried very hard many times in the past to engage with twc, but his ‘materialist’ ideology really is a religious belief.
But, here’s a ‘why’ for you, and all the other ‘materialists’:
When attempting to discuss ‘science’, why do ‘materialists’ never mention social production, democracy, class, Marx, politics, socialism, proletariat, philosophy, history, society, etc., etc…?
You’re not here to defend any of those, are youse?
You’re here to defend ‘Science’.
Youse should really change the name of your party to the Scientific Party of Great Britain. It would be far more accurate about your fundamental concern.
twc -“If “we” constructed “our” world “for us”, “we” did a lousy job.
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” our entry into “our” world through the vagina?”
Perhaps we all felt that at such an important moment in our lives, it was important to be near our mothers
What you are forgetting, twc, is that, in the democratised post-modernist world that our feathered friend thinks Marx meant by socialism, those questions are to be put to a vote of the whole human population, along with others such as does heat burn and does the Earth go round the Sun. If the answer to any is no then that reverses or annuls them.
Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous?
LBird,
You mention democracy- and yet a loop- you dismiss twc as being late to the discussion.
I use post structural ideas- but yet matter must sign. It is known through observation that the Earth goes around the Sun- and all our thinking will not change that.
In the past I had been accused of deconstructing an event, and just leaving it there. But I know deconstruction is a tool that then leads to reconstructing something (rather than nothing- like a manifesto that has no purpose). Not all post moderns see matter as immaterial- as I said, I can stub my toe on it: and it hurts.
Best to occupy subject positions that make room to all the narratives, and then decide.
LBird you will know, though it is an assumption to knowledge, that there are many meaning making practices out there (read some Geertz); and even poststructuralists are cautious about making matter into a relativism- Derrida concluded that society needs a quasi- transcendental signifier. Matter is bound to a signifier we produce (less it goes undifferentiated- but it is still there), and we can use whatever term- but it is still material and subject to a scientific narrative, and its field of discourse…
twc raised interesting points- and not late at all- and I notice you use signifiers to label him according to your choosing. Why not ask him and explore it!
Be kind when you debate, stay safe..
Ozymandias wrote: “Just a small grammatical point here. It’s You’se.
Not Youse.”
I’m afraid you’re wrong. Oz.
‘Youse’ is the plural of ‘you’.
Similar to ‘I/We’ or ‘He/They, there is ‘You/Youse’.
‘Youse’ = second person plural.
There is no apostrophe in a plural – apostrophes are used for omission or possession. It’s a common mistake, though. Often in small shops – “Apple’s for sale”, for example.
I used ‘youse’ to make it clear I was talking to more people than just twc – that is, my advice was for the whole party, not just for twc personally.
L. B. Neil wrote: “I use post structural ideas…”
Yeah, that’s were we differ, I think, L. B.
I use Marx’s ideas.
There’s no problem in having differing ideologies – it’s just best, like us, to be open about our ‘theory’, which informs our practice.
We’d both agree on that, I think – that exposing one’s pre-existing assumptions, theories, concepts, methods is a fundamental part of any ‘science’, and has been since at least the late 19 century.
LBird,
I appreciate your debate, and your challenges.
I said I use post modern theory- I did not say I am form my World View by it- they are just tools.
Any construction or science needs many informative disciplines- a scientist, a teacher, a mechanic, et al… can read Marx but they are also informed by many influences.
Yes it is good to expose pre-existing assumptions. Marxist ideas also compliment so many other methods, and helped shape them…
Be well,
LB
Actually, Ozy, you should address him as “youse” since he likes to refer himself in the plural as “Marxists” when he means “I” when expressing his idiosyncratic personal views.
“Not all post moderns see matter as immaterial- as I said, I can stub my toe on it: and it hurts.“
That’s interesting (and reassuring — at least you’ve got your feet in the ground !). So some actually do see “matter” as a human creation. Do you know which one of them came up with the idea that the Sun moved round the Earth when that was the common view?
ALB
“That’s interesting (and reassuring — at least you’ve got your feet in the ground !). So some actually do see “matter” as a human creation. Do you know which one of them came up with the idea that the Sun moved round the Earth when that was the common view?”
If I had read that as a fundamental requirement to read postmodernism- I would have smiled and ran back to modernism.
I think, I read post structural thought mostly in the field of social science- and challenging ‘taken for granted ideas’: this is the way things are- and accept it. It is always good to challenge oppressive practices- and work anti-oppressively.
The are always divisions in any ‘movement’- and poststructuralism is a field that seems in a flux. Matter matters. What we do with it structures our thinking about it.
My feet are firmly on the ground, ALB!
There are some quirky ideas in any mode of thought- and there are some that would think we created existence out of our own thinking- but I think they have fell into their own thoughts without consulting any external reference and pass pataphysics off as science… Its fine, they just need to openly declare it- would hate to stub my toe on something that I was told was ethereal!
Oh, must have missed that book on poststructural thought- the Earth doth Stand Still- and the Sun Moves ‘Round it!
LB 🙂
L. B. Neill wrote: “I said I use post modern theory- I did not say I am form my World View by it- they are just tools.”
Thanks for being honest about your ideology, L. B. At least we all know both yours and mine.
It’d be interesting and informative, though, to ask what ideology does form your ‘World View’?
The answer from me is Marx.
To be clear, Marx’s ideas form both my ‘Science View’ and my ‘World View’.
I’m not sure that there is a difference, but I’m prepared to employ your concepts to give a clear answer.
And… ‘tools’… what other ‘tools’ do you employ, then, other than ‘post structural ideas’ and ‘post modern theory’?
What are your criteria for picking up any ‘tool’, as opposed to any other ‘tool’?
Thanks LBird,
“What are your criteria for picking up any ‘tool’, as opposed to any other ‘tool’?”
I can give you one example of using structural and poststructural ideas- for fear of turning this into an autobiography.
Theory and practice are ‘tools’ to be put to use. When I say I use these as a skill- it is in the field of counselling. using Social constructive/construction knowledge and practice (Third wave CBT, Discourse theory, anti-oppressive Practice [social sector centred] and Narrative Theory). You might say I use integrative tools too encompassing Jung, and Lacan… so very broad and can’t be summerised in a post. It would be better for me to say using the best practice intervention that is evidenced based and has efficacy that has been proven (modern and postmodern)
I use these ‘tools’ as it fits with my identity as a helper, alleviating cognitive and emotional distress.
One example should suffice. Marx has informed so much thinking in social research and practice- and it is what draws me here, that we can consciously change the mode of production and socialism would reduce many forms of suffering in today’s jurisdictions…
It is an example you ask for. And hope my tired attempts help (it has been a long year).
Stay safe
LB
“Oh, must have missed that book on poststructural thought- the Earth doth Stand Still- and the Sun Moves ‘Round it!”
You could be right, LB (Neil), that no postmodernist has explicitly stated that at one time the Sun moved round the Earth — though it has been expressed by you can guess who on this forum. It seems to derive from what critics of postmodernism concluded from the view put forward by that intellectual fraud (as are most modern French philosophers except those who are piss-takers), Foucault, that “truth is a manufactured belief”.
This article uses as an example how this could be used to argue that in 0 AD it was true that “the sun revolves around the earth” .
This one cites the postmodernist Steve Woolgar:
“Woolgar (1989) argues that scientists construct objects through their representations of them. Objects, according to Woolgar, whether they are countries or electrons, are socially constructed entities, and do not exist aside from this social construction. ”
and goes on to ask:
“Anyone who really thinks that “beliefs create reality” should be eager to explain how the real motions of all planets in the solar system changed from earth-centered orbits in 1500 (when this was believed by almost everyone) to sun-centered orbits in 1700 (when this was believed by almost all scientists). Did the change in beliefs (from theories of 1500 to theories of 1700) cause a change in reality (with planets beginning to orbit the sun at some time – but exactly when did this occur – between 1500 and 1700) ?”
I don’t think any postmodernist has taken up this challenge, though our feathered friend did a few years ago but I can’t remember what date he came up with, though he did say that at some later date it would be put to a vote of the whole adult human population as well as having the impudence to claim that this was Marx’s view too.
Thanks ALB
Foucault can be difficult- some ideas useful: some not!
It has a series of methods or use that can shed light on researching meaning making practices in a culturally sensitive way and how this is lived out in practice- useful for assessing social problems/solutions.
But may not be useful in astrophysics- best left to the hard sciences and the astrophysicists and astronomers- I do not think democracy can decide on the physical forces of an event horizon: but physicists can formulate their discoveries (postulations) for us to consider.
🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.