I saw Jim Al-Kalili on Chaos. Like most mathematicians they tend to valorise, even mythologise the ability of maths to explain the universe, when it seems more clear to me that what they are actually doing is modelling it -describing it by applying the a priori to the a posteriori. There is another TV mathematician, that also seem to keep overplaying his hand as if maths is a universal language of reality - I don't see it. In this they cross a conceptual divide from an induction to a set of hypothetical metaphysical propositions. This is no different from Aristotle and Eudoxus putting all the planets in a nest of crystal spheres because they don't see how they can move without being in contact with each other. They were filing up the gaps between the numbers as AL-khalili filled up the unknown with an overarching and universal explanation of "self organising matter". It's like "gravity" did it!! It is commonly (and I mean commonly ) accepted that gravity is the "cause" of falling bodies, when we all know that gravity is what we call the phenomenon of the tendency for bodies to fall - What are the boundaries between explanation and description - is science anything but description?
However I did enjoy the programme and it freaked me out a bit. I was taken back to 1980 when I used to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos - normally high on Pot. Those were the days! I thought his picture in a picture, in a picture with unpredictable patterns was nothing more than an indication of unpredictable but determinable factors - wholly determined by the equipment and the parameters of light but only unpredictable because no one has actually taken the trouble to do the maths - the possibility of which in the earlier part of the program was demonstrated by the Turring stuff. He was doing a bit of smoke and mirrors to wow the crowd - a cheap trick I thought!! On Jan 19, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting in many ways John. I'm not personally convinced by > enlightenment arguments. I've read quite a bit in the area out of > boredom with my own teaching field and what passes for literature and > entertainment. I was an academic too long to have much respect for > the academy. It's often struck me that most people going back 2,000 > years by time-machine would be useless because they have no knowledge > to take back. The majority are hardly enlightened now and never have > been. I can't explain this well, but I feel fashion has a lot to do > with it all, and how boring is fashion to the non-vapid? Plagiarism > rides along somewhere in all this 'fortunate class crap'. Why are > most of us such nerks that we don't escape our myth of origin > cultures? Who gets to claim to be enlightened and how? Both links > touch a bit to my disorganised questioning. > A current BBC documentary on 'Chaos' (BBC iPlayer is the easiest > access on BBC4) is better than most of its science programmes and hits > at some E questions indirectly. Chaos is for once explained in terms > of self-organisation and we get a hint of thinking that might just be > turning a lot over. I was taught most of it as an undergrad around > 1970 and was shamefully incapable with it all, despite being much > better then at maths than I am now. There is a certain 'E' in > realisng one has been a fatuous adolescent git and somehow 'developed' > into an old fart! I can see now that much I took as science was not > up to the mark because I was rejecting much of the lying authority > around me (church, parents, peer groups etc.). I knew I was not up to > the mark when I started postgrad work, but was good enough technically > to survive. Some people had things going on in their heads that I > don't experience, abilities with numbers, spatial super-impositions > and stuff - a long way different from piss-wittering postmodern text > engines. One poor sod used to tell me he didn't see what all the fuss > about light was because he saw black lines in it - he was cabbaged by > 25, but was so good at some of the stuff we did I suspect maybe he did > see this reality (light is not what we see of it, has 'holes' and can > be 'knotted'). Nash said his loony tune moments came from the same > place as his maths. > Thanks for the links and your piece above John - it's encouraging and > has me 'off on one' (hence the disjointed stuff above). I can say I > think it's a mistake to think we have rejected religion (not 'cos I > want any of the vile stuff) but because of its likely continuing > influence in screwing up what we can think and maybe because the > godspot could have some sensory use to us if it was just part of being > controlled or rendered insane? > > On 19 Jan, 02:57, jonbenn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I though this link may add a little light to the > > subject.http://www.scrye.com/~station/dissertation.html > > > There was a definite change in the world view, in the outlook of the > > West, starting with Kant, of course. This was picked up and amplified > > in different ways but to the same general effect by Hegel, and the > > other German Idealists, and Schopenhauer. > > > So its pretty clear that one general trend of thought, effecting the > > whole of western culture, was replaced by another with the Kantian > > revolution. There was a progression of world views from the 17th > > century forward from Christian Theism, to Deism, to every kind of > > atheism, and pagan, or naturalistic religions. Quite simple there was > > a deification of nature that occurred with the rise and fall of the > > Enl. > > > While the Enl grew out of Christian theism, and its belief in > > revealed truth, over and above reason, this changed with Locke who saw > > reason as primary. The modern world then came into being on the cusp > > of two ages. And each age, and its metaphyscial outlook and its > > epistemological stance, grew directly out of its theology-on it > > understanding of God, even when God was denied. > > > This is especiall apparent when you look at Hegel and the other > > Idealists, who were all trained theologians and intentionally set out > > to define a new relationship between the infinite and the finite, the > > Creator and the creation. Every thing else that has come since, has > > been the result of this new orientation in philosophy which was > > founded on a new undertstanding of theology, and the relationship of > > the Creator to the creation. > > > Derrida, Focault, Godel, the pragmatists, you name em. They all issued > > from this great historical re-alignment from a dualistic world view > > based on Judea-Christian thought, to a monistic world view based on > > Greek neo-paganism, neo-platonists, and from Schopenhauer to > > Nietzsche, and even Heidegger, a world view based on Hinduism, eastern > > thought, the Vedas and the Upanishads. > > > But the point is that the Enlightenment, the basis for it was > > origially the Bible. Hegel thought he was rationalizing, or > > demytholigizing, the Bible. Rendering its content and insight, and > > revelation in rational terms. And this is where we see the transition > > from Christian theism, and a Biblically based metaphysics, (which was > > dualistic), to an pagan/eastern/naturalistic metaphisics which was > > monistic. And this later eastern view deified nature, and obscured the > > boundaries between the Creator and the creation, and all the other > > categories of thought on which it depended. > > > Here's another link that may be of interest for future > > discussions.http://www.gaiamind.com/Tarnas.html > > > Jon > > > On Jan 17, 11:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here's some pure Klingon on the subject: > > > This chapter is concerned with some implications of how time, space, > > > and social change have been powerfully retheorized under the impetus > > > of poststructuralism. Social science has steadily jettisoned long- > > > standing teleological conceptions of social structure and change that > > > pervaded Marxist and Weberian accounts. Inspired by structuration > > > theory and philosophical realism, disciplines such as geography and > > > sociology have increasingly come to emphasize the contingent nature of > > > social reality, that is, the manner in which it could be different. As > > > part of this transformation, poststructural theorizations have focused > > > on the rejection of simplistic dichotomies such as individual/society, > > > culture/economy, nature/society, objective/subjective, global/local, > > > and time/space, all of which thwart their effective integration. > > > I assert that the theorization of social and spatial life necessarily > > > involves the rejection of an additional dichotomy, that between the > > > real and the imaginary, the actual and the possible, the ontological > > > and the epistemological. If what is defined as the “real” is not > > > simply equated with the observed, the definition of “reality” broadens > > > to include not only what is, but what might be, and the lines between > > > the real and the possible become blurred in productive and imaginative > > > ways. Poststructuralism elevates unmaterialized possibilities to the > > > level of ontology. In other words, what is taken to be real is not > > > simply what is observable or actual but forms one outcome secreted > > > from a broader universe of possibilities. Social reality includes > > > events that never happened in fact, but could have happened plausibly > > > as defined by theory. Thus, the distinction between what did happen > > > and what could happen is not obvious or unproblematic. History and > > > geography are the understanding of not only why things happen, but why > > > they do not. > > > > Barney Warf > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > On 18 Jan, 02:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > They do point out Ari didn't do experiment. Some of the presenter's > > > > dissections are as messy as mine, which lent him some cred to me. On > > > > a slightly different tack, there is stuff on animal learning. I > > > > always remember Imo - some monkey that started to wash her food in the > > > > sea, with the others soon catching on. In another area, I had to read > > > > mounds on management strategies, and couldn't conclude much other than > > > > they were all retrospective 'successes'. The general standard is > > > > incompetence, which we rarely investigate. In all history, there is a > > > > tendency to create existential heroes who don't stand real scrutiny. > > > > > On 17 Jan, 22:55, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry if we have colonised your thread, but as us 'gentlemen' have > > > > > contributed 15 of the 17 postings - that kinda means that it belongs > > > > > to us. > > > > > > On Jan 17, 9:01 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Would you kindly, gentlemen, fuck off from this thread, as you don't > > > > > > twig the slightest of it, and kindly change the "subject" under > > > > > > which > > > > > > you dump your drivel. > > > > > > Respectfully > > > > > > Georges. > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Subject: [epistemology 11193] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2) > > > > > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 7:34 PM > > > > > > > > The question of the Enlightenment is not so much how do we > > > > > > > know but > > > > > > > what the hell do we think it is. > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 4:07 am, jonbenn <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I haven' responded to this list in years, it got to > > > > > > > hostile. And I > > > > > > > > haven't followed the recent posts, but thought I might > > > > > > > just dive in > > > > > > > > here and as the obvious epistemological question-how > > > > > > > do you know? How > > > > > > > > do you know anything at all? Once you answer that > > > > > > > question then you > > > > > > > > can as whether or not there was such a thin as the > > > > > > > enlightenment, and > > > > > > > > other questions. First, how do you know. > > ... > > read more »
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
