Jean Baudrillard Did Not Die

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
...while post-modernism is critical of science as the basis of all enlightenment...
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY my point! Science has never claimed to be the basis of all enlightenment - or rather, anyone who has ever claimed that is grossly misrepresenting it (most likely someone in an anti-scientific position constructing a straw man). For one thing, science can't be used to prove that 2+2=4, since mathematics doesn't need science, while you need mathematics to do (most worthwhile) science. Plus there's the entire sphere of humanities or 'human sciences', about which (natural) science has not much to say. You can't use quantum mechanics to make meaningful statements about economics, politics or linguistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
That's EXACTLY my point! Science has never claimed to be the basis of all enlightenment - or rather, anyone who has ever claimed that is grossly misrepresenting it (most likely someone in an anti-scientific position constructing a straw man). For one thing, science can't be used to prove that 2+2=4, since mathematics doesn't need science, while you need mathematics to do (most worthwhile) science. Plus there's the entire sphere of humanities or 'human sciences', about which (natural) science has not much to say. You can't use quantum mechanics to make meaningful statements about economics, politics or linguistics.
Click to expand...

"Science", of course, has never made any claims: many PEOPLe have claimed that science was the ultimate answer for all the world's ills. Look it up. Search "logical positivism" on google.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
wasn't mr. tea the one who thought it plausible that 80% of rape accusations were made by "drunks who regretted 'it' the next morning"? abstractions may not be his forte
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
"Science", of course, has never made any claims: many PEOPLe have claimed that science was the ultimate answer for all the world's ills. Look it up. Search "logical positivism" on google.
Click to expand...

By 'science' I obviously meant 'the body of people practising science'.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Then you are wrong: there are plenty of scientists who've approached science with the same dogmatism any Christian or other religious person approaches their religious beliefs/practices.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
wasn't mr. tea the one who thought it plausible that 80% of rape accusations were made by "drunks who regretted 'it' the next morning"? abstractions may not be his forte
Click to expand...

Does everyone on here specialise in misquotation and misrepresentation? That figure came from a comment someone made on the BBC News website. And if we're being strictly rational about this, unless you have any hard evidence to the contrary then it is plausible (although as it happens I certainly don't think it's true).
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
Then you are wrong: there are plenty of scientists who've approached science with the same dogmatism any Christian or other religious person approaches their religious beliefs/practices.
Click to expand...

That in no way makes science a religion or anything like one. Scientific theories are only accepted into the corpus of human knowledge after rigorous (favourable) comparison to empirial data, and if and when solid, repeatable contradictory data comes to light, or a fatal logical flaw is found in the theory, then old theories are discarded or modified as appropriate as new ones are developed. I suggest you read some Thomas Kuhn.

For the record, I don't think anyone has ever been killed over a purely scientific dispute, much less a war started over one.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I know you were quoting someone, Mr. Tea: the hilarious part is how flagrantly ridiculous the number was, and how dubious the source was. An anonymous "commentor" on a BBC website? Making a claim that ridiculous about rape statistics? Most people would've passed that one over, instead of trying to cite it in an argument.

It is NOT plausible given any adult human's intuitive understanding of how much stigma is brough on rape accusers.

But let's not derail this thread...

Baudrillard deserves better, was my point. May he RIP.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
That in no way makes science a religion or anything like one. Scientific theories are only accepted into the corpus of human knowledge after rigorous (favourable) comparison to empirial data, and if and when solid, repeatable contradictory data comes to light, or a fatal logical flaw is found in the theory, then old theories are discarded or modified as appropriate as new ones are developed. I suggest you read some Thomas Kuhn.

For the record, I don't think anyone has ever been killed over a purely scientific dispute, much less a war started over one.
Click to expand...

I didn't say science was a religion. I said some people view it with the sort of fervor and dogmatic insistence on universal adherence that one would a religion.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
For the record, I don't think anyone has ever been killed over a purely scientific dispute, much less a war started over one.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have surely been killed using technologies that were the byproduct of scientific endeavors. In fact, even Einstein who helped develop nuclear technologies agreed that many people viewed science and technology with an almost mystical belief in its infallibility, and the need for its preeminence in human interactions.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I don't want to talk about science. I want to talk about Baudrillard. No more derailing this thread.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
gek-opel said:
Death and furniture arguments. vis: "Im tapping on this chair leg, of course it is real" "are you denying that millions died in..." etc etc... yeawn...
Click to expand...

Well what do you expect people to think if you say "the Gulf War didn't happen"? When what you actually mean is "Of course the Gulf War really happened, I'm just saying that it didn't Really happen, in a clever-clever postmodern kinda way, you dig?".
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea: why don't you get back to us after you actually, I don't know, READ THE TEXTS we're talking about.
 
E

Edward

+
EDIT: oops wrote this while you were writing "no more derailing the thread"... sorry!



Here is a sincere question:
can you tell me any reason to doubt the scientific method?

I don't think I am dogmatic or religious, I think the very definition of "science" means the absence of these things, believing only that for which there is strong evidence.

I am aware there are problems around logical positivism and proof by induction - ie "what do we really actually know?" (by the way david deutsch has some interesting thoughts about this)

...but I think there is no more reasonable or reliable alternative to the scientific method for finding things out about the universe.
 
P

polystyle

Well-known member
nomos said:
Has a link ever been noted between his words on NYC graffiti in Symbolic Exchange and Death and Rammellzee's 'Ikonic Treatise'? This is why I was looking for 'The Order of Simulacra' the other night. Baudrillard fumbles a bit with his American graffiti examples ('graffiti has no content, no message') but the germ of Ikonoklast Panzerism - militaristic deployment of chrono-politically encoded letter forms - seems to be there. I've wondered if this ended up feeding into Ramm's theorisation of Wild Style to any degree.
Click to expand...

Dunno if there is a link from Ramm's side - but can ask , was getting ready to call him right now matter of fact.
Hmmm, when was 'Symbolic' written ?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
A lot of people have surely been killed using technologies that were the byproduct of scientific endeavors. In fact, even Einstein who helped develop nuclear technologies agreed that many people viewed science and technology with an almost mystical belief in its infallibility, and the need for its preeminence in human interactions.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake - what exactly does science, as a pure intellectual discipline, have to do with specific applications of science? Fuck all, that's what. As a case in point, the Einstein/bomb thing is one of the biggest white elephants in the history of science.

Scientists, being people, can be moral or immoral as their personal character dictates. Science itself is inherently amoral, just as the field of ethics takes no particular stance on atomic theory.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Edward said:
Here is a sincere question:
can you tell me any reason to doubt the scientific method?

I don't think I am dogmatic or religious, I think the very definition of "science" means the absence of these things, believing only that for which there is strong evidence.

I am aware there are problems around logical positivism and proof by induction - ie "what do we really actually know?" (by the way david deutsch has some interesting thoughts about this)

...but I think there is no more reasonable or reliable alternative to the scientific method for finding things out about the universe.
Click to expand...

there is nothing wrong with science per se. who said there was?

well, many would say the very essence of Christianity is to reserve judgment of peoples' actions, yet many many Christians are highly judgmental people
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
Oh for God's sake - what exactly does science, as a pure intellectual discipline, have to do with specific applications of science? Fuck all, that's what. As a case in point, the Einstein/bomb thing is one of the biggest white elephants in the history of science.

Scientists, being people, can be moral or immoral as their personal character dictates. Science itself is inherently amoral, just as the field of ethics takes no particular stance on atomic theory.
Click to expand...

NOTHING. Baudrillard and Lyotard were talking about the PRACTICE of SCIENCE. As I noted like a million times. DUHHHHH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top