Richard Dawkins

[Mr. Tea]

...he's explicitly, although presumably innocently, placing people on a metaphysical path which has previously lead many to social darwinism.

I find the suggestion that Dawkins should censor himself because of the risk that stupid, unpleasant people might misinterpret what he says about natural selection as indirect support for social Darwinism pretty bizarre, when you consider that the Talmud, Bible and Qu'ran - when read in a perfectly straightforward, literal way - give ample support for patriarchy, homophobia, religious intolerance and all sorts of unpleasantness.

 

[vimothy]

Science is not an ideology (whatever some philosophers might say). It is, in principle, a totally amoral way of gathering and collating information and forming theories.

Would you say that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[comelately]

I find the suggestion that Dawkins should censor himself because of the risk that stupid, unpleasant people might misinterpret what he says about natural selection as indirect support for social Darwinism pretty bizarre, when you consider that the Talmud, Bible and Qu'ran - when read in a perfectly straightforward, literal way - give ample support for patriarchy, homophobia, religious intolerance and all sorts of unpleasantness.

So he is playing the religious game then? What is a straight, literal way of reading a 'text'?

The whole point about the infinite chain of meaning is that it discounts the possibility of science being a strictly closed system, and thus of it being strictly amoral. All closures (i.e. treating a sign as doing something other than pointing to another sign or signs) ultimately have moral implications.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Would you say that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Neither! It's just a Thing. I would say that its consequences have, on the whole, been more for the good than for the bad - you know, societies where people can reasonably expect to survive infancy, that sort of thing. Not to say that there aren't huge challenges associated with technological society as well. I'm not advocated science as the cure for all problems, obviously.

 

[Mr. Tea]

So he is playing the religious game then? What is a straight, literal way of reading a 'text'?

Well if your holy book says 'kill the queers', and you interpret that as meaning that queers should be killed, then I'd call that a pretty literal interpretation. But then I suppose it all depends on how you define 'kill', 'queer' and so on, ad nauseam...

The whole point about the infinite chain of meaning is that it discounts the possibility of science being a strictly closed system, and thus of it being strictly amoral. All closures (i.e. treating a sign as doing something other than pointing to another sign or signs) ultimately have moral implications.

That's quite a claim. Can you back it up?

 

[comelately]

Although a 'literal reading' of a text is not unproblematic - okay I see what you are saying. A literal reading of a text isn't necessarily the best reading of a text.

Regardng my 'claim', I feel I have demonstrated it already, several times and that it really isn't that radical. With IdleRich, I felt the circle of debate was actually moving us both towards something approaching common ground. With us that just isn't happening so I'm not that inclined to pursue it further *shrug*.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You may have stated it and argued for it, but that's not the same as demonstrating it. Would you go as far as saying that something like the discovery of DNA has an inherent moral aspect to it, because it's so closely linked to issues like forensics, cloning, racial identity, GMOs and all the rest of it? Is that the kind of thing you mean?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Or is this what you're referring to:

I suggest that the continental tradition is the only way to critique the empirical/analytical tradition in a way that provides a check on the inevitable fetishisation of concepts that assist capitalism, and possibly totalitarianism, that result from the fetishisation of the empirical tradition.

...which is not at all obvious to me, I have to say. I mean, sure, philosophers working in some of the more applied traditions, like ethics or philosophy of economics, might well be pro-capitalist, libertarian or whatever in a way that's wholly relevant to their philosophy (just as some might be Marxists, anarchists or whatever). But I'm extremely sceptical of claims that very abstract disciplines like metaphysics could in any meaningful way be said to "assist capitalism", or to oppose it for that matter. Is there such a think as "Marxist epistemology" or "free-market ontology"? And Sokal spare me from "feminist physics" and all that malarkey...

Also, about "totalitarianism": isn't Z-boy pretty much an unreconstructed Marxist-Leninist? These days, at least, whatever he may have done 20+ years ago. And what about Badiou? Not exactly people you'd associated with a pro-democracy stance, at least from my understanding of them - which I stress once again is a lay position, happy to be corrected if I've got completely the wrong end of the stick though.

 

[comelately]

You may have stated it and argued for it, but that's not the same as demonstrating it.

In the sense that I haven't demonstrated it *to you*, I haven't demonstrated it. I am satisfied with my demonstration however. At that point, I shrug and move on. but broadly yes, I do think that 'there is such a thing' as "Marxist epistemology" and "free-market ontology". Yes I think there are metaphysical theories that assist capitalism. It's really obvious to me. Everything is connected to everything else - that is Lenin of course.

Z-boy is a misanthropic contrarian basically. Yes he identifies himself in certain ways, but that isn't to be taken at face value.

Until you grasp deferment of meaning, which is a concept that is clearly challenging for you to grasp (no offence is meant), then yeah; you're going to struggle to make sense of much of this stuff. I'm probably not the one to bring you round.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

^ @tea (CL) I refer back to exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread. there's no point in arguing with these guys. you can't win, or lose. you're just trapped in a infinite feedback loop of bullshit. if you challenge them to demonstrate a point, they inevitably say, in the most condescending manner possible, you just don't understand (which is a claim to false authority if I ever heard one, but whatever). or they make statements so vague - "everything is connected to everyone else" - as to be meaningless. or they retreat into jargon-heavy inscrutability.

also, since absolutely no one cares about continental philosophy except continental philosophers + their grad students, why even waste time "refuting" it? to quote wolfgang pauli, it's not even wrong.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

there are such things as "marxist epistemology". they're just completely irrelevant to anyone besides their proponents.

 

[comelately]

if you challenge them to demonstrate a point, they inevitably say, in the most condescending manner possible, you just don't understand (which is a claim to false authority if I ever heard one, but whatever). or they make statements so vague - "everything is connected to everyone else" - as to be meaningless.

I actually think that's a blatant mischaracterisation of what has happened in this thread. It's just that I'm tired right now and feel the risk/reward ratio in trying to convince Mr Tea of something I don't think he's particularly interested in being convinced of isn't there. As you say, he doesn't really care.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@tea again - I have much more mixed feelings than you about the "good" of science. undeniably it's lead to an improved standard living for a portion of the human race. otoh it's also lead to a completely unsustainable infrastructure, almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels, that consumes the earth at an incredible rate + still leaves the greater portion of humans in misery. it also provided tools for wars of unimaginable scale + ferocity. the point is not to blame Niels Bohr or whoever for the ravages of inustrial civilization, it's really to ask the question - has progress ultimately been good? the jury's still out. hunter-gatherers had a run of some 40,000 years, so if after a mere few centuries this ends in its own implosion or in poisoning the earth so severely that most of it becomes unlivable, the answer would have to be no.

(not that I'm saying we should all return to hunting + gathering, which is obviously impossible. at his point we're pretty much locked into wherever progress takes us)

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@CL - hey, whatever. I agree with you about inevitability, I just don't think you have the only answer. or any answers. neither do I. neither does anyone. the real thing is, whatever you or I or mr. tea or anyone thinks about how the world works really doesn't matter. there's no escaping what actually is. there is no challenging it that will not be reabsorbed + spit back out as a commodity. we're all just stuck on this fucking plane with no pilot that's crashing in slow motion, hoping for an 11th hour miracle.

you got your hustle just like we all do. best of luck with it, you know?

 

[you]

spanner

 

[Mr. Tea]

@tea again - I have much more mixed feelings than you about the "good" of science. undeniably it's lead to an improved standard living for a portion of the human race. otoh it's also lead to a completely unsustainable infrastructure, almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels, that consumes the earth at an incredible rate + still leaves the greater portion of humans in misery. it also provided tools for wars of unimaginable scale + ferocity.

Yeah, all very true, maybe it looked like I underplayed the downsides...point is that the technologies that science has enabled have had both good and bad consequences, whereas discoveries and theories themselves are - I would argue - necessarily morally neutral.

 

[Mr. Tea]

In the sense that I haven't demonstrated it *to you*, I haven't demonstrated it. I am satisfied with my demonstration however. At that point, I shrug and move on. but broadly yes, I do think that 'there is such a thing' as "Marxist epistemology" and "free-market ontology". Yes I think there are metaphysical theories that assist capitalism. It's really obvious to me. Everything is connected to everything else - that is Lenin of course.

Z-boy is a misanthropic contrarian basically. Yes he identifies himself in certain ways, but that isn't to be taken at face value.

Until you grasp deferment of meaning, which is a concept that is clearly challenging for you to grasp (no offence is meant), then yeah; you're going to struggle to make sense of much of this stuff. I'm probably not the one to bring you round.

I think the situation we have here is a bit like Eagleton vs. Dawkins - you're telling me I can't critique a certain way of thinking because I don't understand the fine details, whereas I reject the basic premise: that an ideology like Marxism, that is applicable to discussions of economics and society, can be applied to very fundamental inquiries into metaphysics or natural sciences that aren't concerned with human beings at all, let alone with societies or economies. You can be a Marxist chemist in the sense of being a chemist who is also a Marxist, but there is no such thing as 'Marxist chemistry', or for that matter 'libertarian physics' or any other such combination. It's patently ludicrous.

"Everything is connected to everything else" - reckon padraig nailed this, "so vague as to be meaningless". How is the theory of types connected to class struggle? It just isn't.

The situation's a bit more complicated with life sciences because, for example, a Marxist biologist might prefer theories that explain the differences between organisms in terms of environmental factors rather than inborn traits - but if he were to abandon scientific objectivity and let his political leanings sway him towards one conclusion rather than another, then he's no longer doing science, it's as simple as that.

 

[vimothy]

Neither! It's just a Thing.

Can it really just be a thing? It seems like the idea that knowledge can be obtained in a value-free and objective manner ought to have implications for society as a whole--especially if this system of knowledge is widely used.

What if we were to compare science to other systems of knowledge: is it better or worse? Does it improve on what was already in use or is that just orthogonal to the issue of science considered as a way of learning about the world?

 

[vimothy]

I mean, let's say we have two "facts" relating to the same object or phenomenon, one derived from some kind of scientific process, and one derived from some kind of "unscientific" process. Do you weight your trust in the answers accordingly? My feeling is that people do, but perhaps I'm just completely out of it as far as what people do and why.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Depends what you mean by "unscientific", doesn't it? If you've decided to paint your bedroom one colour and not another based on your personal preference, that's a non-scientific rather than "unscientific" decision, because science simply doesn't come into it. Colour preference is a non-rational, subjective thing, so to attempt to apply science to it would be silly.

If, on the other hand, you were to make that decision based on feng shui or a horoscope prediction, that would definitely be unscientific (pseudoscientific, really, except that term is usually reserved these days for activities which at least outwardly ape the trappings of science, such as homeopathy). And if you were to make some decision that could affect your health or livelihood based on pseudoscientific criteria, that would be very irrational indeed.

Basically, a scientific approach is not necessarily the correct approach to all problems - but where it is an applicable approach, I would suggest it is usually the best one.