DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:As I've argued, this leaves us with the problem of constructing a solid philosophical basis for 'science', after it had itself destroyed its earlier, erroneous, basis, with the works of Einstein.
You've never explained what you mean by this.Seems to me you've been conflating The General Theory of Relativity as an argument for cogntive relativism, it isn't.So what exactly do you mean here?
steve colborn wrote:Why is it, when anyone ever states things like;"Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science,"They are invariably talking about others, not themselves?"Or unless you're some kind of puritan why would you think the two sets are mutually exclusive. Some of my best times have definitely been some kind of combination of all of them
LBird wrote:You don't agree that Marx was an early 'critical realist'. The term didn't exist then, so he employed 'materialism' with an 'add-on'. Engels and his adherents always drop the 'add-on'.Actually I think calling Marx a "critical realist" is not an unreasonable way to go.i don't think coining the term "idealism-materialism" is helpful for anyone, yet alone yourself.
LBird wrote:Put simply, Marx is not a simple 'materialist': he blended both the insights from the materialists and the idealists, into 'theory and practice'. To call Marx a 'materialist' loses his activist, human, theoretical, social, emphasis.Yes and No. Yes, Marx was not a "crude materialist" but he was still a materialist. But to say that one is a "materialism" does not mean that one is necessarily endorsing "crude materialism"
LBird wrote:I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.Why then did he not refer to himself as such?And why are you the *only* person to describe themselves as such?
I think LBird was claiming to be a realist whilst at the same time also holding to extreme cognitive relativism. The question, for me at least, was if you can actually hold onto both these sets of belief without falling into contradition.Though he would deny it I think there was a strong influence of postmoderism in his thinking…For the time being I'm following Sokal and taking a "modest realist" position…
Shame the article doesn't really have anything to do with the article they mention from the Standard..
scarebear wrote:If anybody is interested…Not particularly. But you do know you can use a user account more than once and don't have to keep starting new ones all the time pretending to be other people?
Bakunin wrote:A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.But that which is true of scientific academies is also true of all constituent and legislative assemblies, even those chosen by universal suffrage. In the latter case they may renew their composition, it is true, but this does not prevent the formation in a few years' time of a body of politicans, privileged in fact though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to the direction of the public affairs of a country, finally form a sort of political aristocracy or oligarchy. Witness the United States of America and Switzerland.Consequently, no external legislation and no authority – one, for that matter, being inseparable from the other, and both tending to the servitude of society and the degradation of the legislators themsleves.Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. ions and even their directions Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give – such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htmThe fact that we mean one thing when we say "socialism" and others mean something else when they use the word shows that there is an ambiguity.No-one has a monopoly on meaning and meaning itself changes through time.Definitions are neither true nor false. The problem comes when people begin by not sharing common definitions of words and so end up talking past one another or when meaning slips during the course of argument (call this the moving the goal posts maneuver).
This is the Stanford Enclyclopedia page on "Truth":http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/Perhaps some brief comments on it might clarify things?
LBird wrote:This retreat by science from the position that it produces ‘The Truth’, a 100%-accurate copy in our minds of what is being ‘observed’, has really troubling implications.Now you've shifted the meaning of what you are referring to as "science". Previously we where talking about scientific knowledge, now you are talking about comentators on science or scientific institutions. This is important to notice as shifts in meaning during the course of an argument cause it to go off track.Did all scientist subscribe to niave realism to begin with? I don't think that is true. Look at early modern scientists or philosophers such as Descartes, Liebniz, Hume or Kant I don't think any of them can be fitted into this catergory. Sceptism (and the idea that the mind plays an acive role in perception) forms the base of how science has deveoped right from the beginning. Though I still think you haven't adequately explained what you would take to be sufficient grounds for calling one statement "true" and another "false". (Let's forget about capital T truth for now).
