IdleRich
IdleRich
OK, to spell it out, S&B obviously see the scientific terminology being used as a reason to judge it scientifically ("though constructed from scientific terminology") as mentioned in the actual quote."gut feeling?"
No, saying it's a provocation means it's annoying, it was the bit before that that meant it was meaningless, I just put the two together."Saying it's a provocation doesn't, evidently, mean that it's 'meaningless, or annoying' - I meant it's a provocation to thought, to think differently..."
How is he not? Maybe that's an annoying answer but it's not intended to be, I simply can't extract any meaning from what B said, can you?"What I meant was, he needs to say why it is meaningless from a scientific point of view, not simply that assert that it is meaningless. How, precisely, is Baudrillard using these terms in a misleading or inaccurate way?"
His argument is "this sentence doesn't make sense and yet he is presenting it as though it does", I accept that he takes it as self-evident that it doesn't make sense (and I, but presumably not you, think most people would agree with him) but it's not circular."Well, his arguments are of the structure 'this is clearly irrelevant and inappropriate, because this sort of thing should not be done'... and why shouldn't this sort of be done? Well, because it is irrelevant and inappropriate, silly!"
"why are you sure, because you have FAITH?"
What I mean is, he is taking it as self-evident that anyone reading that will be able to see it's nonsense. I think he's right because that's how it appears to me, B just throws together word after word that don't go together "turbulence distances effects from their causes" - what does that mean? I simply cannot get anything from that. Or at least, not in any "scientific" sense."So now it's another fallacy, irrelevant appeal to authority: Dawkins must be right, because he knows what he's talking about. We don't have to see any argument or evidence, because we know he could provide it if required. Why couldn't the same be said of Baudrillard: obviously he knows what he's talking about, and therefore there is no real need for him to explain himself to those who do not understand?"
But, let's say that I am taking it on faith, in other words that when a physicist and a biologist argue about the meaning of scientific words in (what they take to be) a scientific context with a philosopher they are more likely to be right, I don't think that's a massive stretch.
Maybe so, I hope not."If you want to know why you should read Baudrillard, that's a different question. Approaching it from this angle, though, is like saying 'I've heard you're a wife-beater - tell me why I should like you..."
Well, once again, I have no problem with someone saying something is self-evident if it's self-evident. I don't see any assertion without evidence unless you are talking about the self-evident thing again (again). I don't see any bullying use of authority and even if I did I don't think that makes any difference to my opinion on the points being made."And quite honestly, if you don't think that appeal to self-evidence, bullying use of authority and assertion without evidence don't weaken someone's case, then there won't be any repudiation of Dawkins that's going to convince you."