DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Since you accept 'truth' of the capital T kind doesn't exist, what about 'false' of the capital F kind? I'm not trying to 'catch you out', but perhaps one stance implies the other?
Actually you can have something like the capital T kind of truth when it comes to A priori truths, things that are true by definition. Eg the truth of the phrase "All bachelors are unmarried" is determined by the meaning of the word "bachelor" not by going out in the world and checking that there are no bachelors with wives.A posteriori truths are the ones that are I guess more related to scientifc knowledge…No you don't need a capital F false because if something is false it is true that it is false. I suppose….
I still think you need to give a couple of sentences explaining what you mean by "true" though.Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind, but that does not mean that all scientific knowledge is therefore false.
Lots of the issues are touched on here in bite sized pieces:https://explorable.com/foundations-of-science
Define what you mean by "true".But why start with Einstein? This stuff goes back to the ancient Greeks if not before.Yes I don't think anyone, especially working scientists, claims that science produces the "Truth" in the complete and final for all eternity sense of the term.
LBird wrote:They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism).And are you talking about materialism in the ontological or the epistemic sense?
LBird wrote:They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism).Well if you reject materialism or physicalism what's your take on it? Dualism, idealism some kind of pluralism or do you think the issue is metaphysical and therefore an none issue?
LBird wrote:Socialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science FindsOne's a person the other is an asumption about the nature of what exists. Ta da!But what is Science?
LBird wrote:If someone wants, for example, to discuss the meaning of 'ideology', then let them start a thread about that issue.It does seem strange that "ideology" forms the cornerstone of you theory of science and epistemology and yet you do not want to discuss what you mean by it..
SocialistPunk wrote:Am I the only one here that thinks this thread is a little on the weird side? I’ve never come across a thread set up like this, specificaly aimed at a forum member.I have to agree with you here, it is a little strange choice of topic.
SocialistPunk wrote:Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?No, more like an argument clinic
LBird subscribes to some crude form of Cognitive Relativism.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:Cognitive relativism continues to be an important but controversial position that one encounters in contemporary debates about the nature of truth, knowledge, rationality, and science. These debates can sometimes be confusing because people neither agree about exactly what relativism affirms, nor about whose views should be described as a relativistic.Critics of relativism sometimes seem to assume that relativists are denying that they believe—or denying themselves the right to believe—obvious truths. But the more sophisticated relativists do not deny that statements like “the earth is round” are true. They just favour a certain philosophical account of what is involved and implied when we describe such statements as “true”. The situation here is reminiscent of the debate between idealists and some of their materialist critics. The critics charge idealists like Berkeley with holding that our sense perceptions are illusions, and they think they can refute this doctrine by doing things like kicking stones. But the idealists do not see themselves as holding or implying any such view. They just think that the materialist explanation of our sense-experiences is philosophically problematic; so they offer what they take to be a more coherent alternative.On the other hand, relativism is sometimes advanced quite crudely. Then, instead of being a philosophical view about the status of our beliefs and the limitations on how we might support these beliefs, it becomes an excuse for accepting uncritically one’s own culture’s assumptions and epistemic norms; or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions. Just as idealists still have to negotiate what we normally call the material world, so relativists have to make decisions about whether particular claims are true or false. Their philosophical relativism may incline them towards being more open-minded and tolerant than dyed-in-the-wool absolutists and objectivists. But they cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. At bottom, the debate over relativism is about whether it is possible for relativists to make these commitments consistently and sincerely.http://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-relVin Maratty wrote:I should have said – how many scientists working from a proletarian (or communist) ideology as opposed to a bourgieos ideology.You are presuposing something here…What does the above actually mean.Though this doesn't quite answer the question we are asking this may be interesting.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics
Vin Maratty wrote:How many proletarian scientists are there?Well I would have thought almost all scientists (and philosophers) are proletarians. So in this sense of the term we already have a proletarian science. But of course they carry out there work under the imperatives of the market system.Though of course "proletarian" is not the same thing as "communist" I don't think the terms should be used interchangeably..
