Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Oh, and Weltanschauung:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_viewI prefer the German original because 'World view" doesn't quite capture the whole of the concept.
I asked how LBird was defining ideology, because it was a key part pemises of the proposition they were putting forward, and I'm aware from previous conversations elseplace, that if you don't tighten up on the meaning of 'ideology' a lot of time and effort can be wasted.A quick story about ideology: I was chatting with a rep. from a French book firm, Aux Amatuers des Livres I pointed out to her that 'The Book Amateurs' would be a bit of an off putting name in English, and she looked surprised: "Don't you have things like Wine Amateurs in England?" she asked, and, indeed we don't. Amateur is almost exclusively a perjorative term in English, the antonym of professional. Indeed, the Latin root is someone doing something for the love of it. Now, the word has evolved, I'd suspect mostly through sport, and th whole "Gentlemen v. players" thing where amatuerism was associated with class, and aristocracy, with the working class professionals being looked down on. It's last positive refuge is in the amateur detective, but only because of Sherlock Holmes.Now, this perjorative sense fits into a complex of pressupositions, predispositions and ideas, but I wouldn't call those ideology. I would call the class dynamic that created those sets of ideas ideology, the process of makign the ideas of the ruling class the dominant ideas, but not the ideas themselves.Just back to linguistic register. Latin was once a hugely progressive force, it enabled scholarship across national linguistic barriers, the role now played by English. It wasn't the rarified language of academia that kept working class kids out, it was the economic basi of the system whereby they wouldn't even get an education in the first place. For science to remain international, it has to use language differently than everyday meanings.
Unless you define which of the six or seven meanings of ideology you mean, I can't answer your question. In your statements above you use it in ways which could imply two distinct meanings(a system of ideas or a weltangschauung). All I can say is that all Yorkshiremen are liars.
My peers depend on who and where and when I am. They are the people I can communicate with directly and indirectly. By co-operation I mean co-operation, and its conditions will differ based on the mode of production and the exigencies of the society I inhabit.I don't know what you mean by ideology, I suspect we disagree in our definition of it, and thus I cannot answer that question.
LBird wrote:FFS, 'who' determines, and 'how', the human judgement of 'reliable'?What's the matter with your ability to read, YMS? I've been asking this for a year now, and you won't answer.I don't recall seeing that question before.We come back to the key point that it is knowledge generated with others in mind, not for myself. There is not one way of defining reliable: history of success, evidence opf the process used to gain the knowledge, reputation of the producer, etc. are all factors that a rational agent would bear in mind. Of course, that means that we are constantly refining the means by which we communicate reliability and deepening shared knowledge. We all have to make up our own minds, in co-operation with our peers.
DJP wrote:The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".Exactly, there is whatever works to produce and corroborate knowledge, reliable knowledge.
LBird wrote:Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.Unclipped sentence wrote:Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).the two above sentences are identical. Once again, we see Marx agrees with me. We bring scince back to sensuous human behaviour, real people in action, because their knowledge exists for me, and my knwoledge exists for them as well.
SP,Mathematicians disagree strongly about what cannot be proved, but once something is proven, it stays proven: the proof of an infinite number of primes remains true. DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.Anyway, back to socialism. Whilst I think Rovelli's almost Holmesian notion of expanding on what is theoretically established is interesting, he notes otehrs are trying different routes. This is fine, because there is no one scientific method. If we get to our materialist roots, we come back to science being reliable organised knowledge.Reliable brings up a number of features. It means that knowledge is confirmed by the senses and ideas of other people. Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).People who talk to each other a lot, and who share a detailed common understanding will naturally develop an efficiency in communication, a jargon, because to not do so would be cumbersome. Why use three words when a single made up word (neologism) will do the job just as nicely. Of course, translating between these registers is a skill additional to the basic skill set of a scientific practitioner.
Admittedly, it took Russell & Whitehead over 300 pages to prove thet 1+1=2http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401(Note, though, that they hadn't yet defined what + meant).
Interestingly, I'd have thought this book:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoples-History-Science-Midwives-Mechanicks/dp/1560257482Which goes in the opposite direction to Rovelli would be more apt: Clifford argues that most great scientific discoveries were made by working people and common folk, and that the 'great thinkers' are mostly great appropriators.
One reviewer wrote:What Conner shows is rooted in the anthropologically sound understanding that science is a collective process of comprehending and changing the world around us. This is hardly to deny the fact that there have been outstanding and "craftsman-like" individuals who have sythesized the work of others to develop new insights and make exciting breakthroughs. (For every such genius, of course, there are a number of intellectual thieves — some of whom fare badly in Conner's book — but that it is another matter.) Unlike so many intellectual historians, however, Conner's focus is on the collective process, the unacknowledged heroines and heroes, Conner's "Miners, Midwives, and 'Low Mechaniks'" (as well as hunters and gatherers and early horticulturalists) whose efforts were essential to the forward movement of science.YMS Post #19 wrote:So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the other in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.Rovelli wrote:Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.Well, stuff me sideways, if that isn't exactly what i've been saying. It seems that Rovelli has been agreeing with me all along!http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certaintyAs I also said, the etymology of "Real" is "Royal" (i.e. real things hadve the royal seal of approval) and "true" just meant "loyal"). Those theories or ideas that are most loyal to our best efforts of experience are true. We have to live in the world, and act, and must treat our knowledge accordingly, else we'd be left tryign to walk through walls, ebcause we can never know that that is impossible.
I think I know what you think the problem is, but I don't know if what I think you think is what you think, I know only you know what you think, and I can only know what I think you are saying you think, but only if you think of saying it. So I say you should say what you think, then I'll have my say. Whaddaya say?
All I'm looking for is some argument, rather than assertion. In what way did Einstein undermine (rather than confirm) the scientific method?In the past I have internet arguments that have gone on for years, only for both participants to begind to realise we weren't arguing what we were arguing about, and that both sides had merits.I've tried discussing what science is, the historical evolution of the words real and true, the parable of the five wise monkeys. There must be some point of reference we can find that clarifies the matter at hand.
