DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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..
LBird wrote:If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fineNo I don't think that. What I do think is that to further engage with your eccentric muddle headed fantasism is a waste of my time.
LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
LBird wrote:I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.By 'ideology' I'm assuming that you mean the 'web of beliefs' that a person uses to make sense of the world. I think that 'ideology' can refer to a section of this web but not the web as a whole. I think you're using the word 'ideology' too broadly and that's part of the problem.The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts. By just naming some 'ism' there's no guarantee that we can magically transfer our "webs of belief". For a start I might mean something different when using the word "ism" than when you use the word "ism".I generally go along with the Rovelli quote but would say that it was not that Newtonian physics is wrong, just that in order to represent reality it was shown necessary to employ another granular level of explanation. The laws of newton still explain the motion of large bodies in space.You seem to be using Einstein as a proponent of *cognitive* relativism, I think this is mistaken. The theory of relativity depends on the speed of light and the laws of physics *being the same* for both observers, if the speed of light or the laws of physics where relative to observers the theory would not work. Though if you want to again talk epistemology or philosophy of language (the meaning stuff) it will probably best to start another thread.
1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.I know I've broken all of those 'rules' at some point
It was a genuine question, since I think that discussion forums are a very bad place for getting ideas across (as the above replies would indicate) essays work better as points can be developed with more accuracy and detail and for the author it provides a chance to distill ones thoughts and really find out where and weak areas or contradictions lie…19th century positivism and logical positivism are dead dogs, I agree. In the early 21st century much of the stuff you have been talking about forms part of undergraduate philosophy courses and is generally accepted as true.Yes Engels got some stuff wrong, but to think that the history of the workers movement would be dramatically different if "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" where worded differently is spurious at best.I think you do have some good points to raise, but for whatever reason, you are doing a very bad job of it. I hope that doesn't come across as patronising that is not my intention…Anyhow, I think Vin's questions about "proletarian philosophy of science" are leading in the right direction…
LBird wrote:Marx was a trained philosopher, but Engels was, at best, an amateur. And we now know his amateurish books are wrong (NB. his science, not his other works).So, are *you* a trained philospher? Have you written your views in essay legnth form anywhere?
stuartw2112 wrote:One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFNI'd agree with this. In fact once a certain idea becomes one that we personally cherish we should purposfully look for things that undermine it. To do otherwise is to fall prey of wishful thinking or religous thinking. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomena and one that constantly needs to be countered.
It was Radio 4 book of the week. Sadly doesn't seem to be online any more.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042j8y1
These are videos about selective attention bias and other visual cognitive biases. They're done by the guy that wrote the book "The Invisible Gorilla" which I highly recommend.Better lay out of the videos here:http://www.simonslab.com/videos.html
