As my second posting for the week: Replying to Steven and James --
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@semeiosis.org> wrote: Dear Stan, You wrote: On Mar 6, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: > > ... There can be no 'objective' knowledge of properties outside the material abilities of the knower. Bridgman was the most honest physicist! And von Uexküll was the best psychologist. There is no knowledge outside the knower. All is 'local knowledge' only. Yes, this is postmodernism. However, even with this viewpoint as a standpoint, one can proceed to do standard theoretical and philosophical work because, for example, the universe IS one of our equations! In postmodernism, scientific theory and philosophy become artistic achievements for their own sake, expressing humanity's, and more particularly Western Culture's imagination. The difference, then, is that in the postmodern view, there might be other perspectives, while in the standard scientific view there is only one true perspective, which frequently gets locked into repressive ‘bandwagons’ (as in Darwinian evolutionary biology, or general relativity cosmology). Excepting for some complaint concerning the labels you choose (I don't see the point of calling this fact "post modernism" or referring to scientific theory as "artistic achievements"), and if I understand you correctly, I agree with that there is "no knowledge outside the knower." However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely. Well, if by 'uniformity' you mean that the results of our activities have some predictability, I would say that what this actually refers to is that our conceptual tools (laws, expectations, etc.) are usually successful in aiding our projects. That is a great intellectual achievement. But as to a supposed actual uniformity (?statistical) of the universe, that is a product of, and exists in, our discourses. At core, accepting potential refinement of the scientific method, I can't imagine what "other perspectives" are allowed ... but, perhaps, that is my own (positivist) intellectual investment. Your sociological comments do not persuade me that there are alternatives. Well, there have been prior successful cultures (now defunct), who created some respectable objects outside of Western culture. But in our culture, now, I am at a loss. But for all that, I think it prudent to always have some reservations about the efficacy of our conceptual biases -- in particular, toward the definite (how about some fuzziness in scientific logic?), toward focusing in on problems (complexity clearly has vitiated this tendency), toward calculating returns (narrowness of focus limiting our wisdom), and so on. With respect, Steven Ten, James -- On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, James Hannam <b...@bede.org.uk> wrote: Dear Steven, I agree that science has forced us to accept that the universe is an objective reality. It stands as an unforgiving test of our theories which must be judged accordingly. Although we cannot say that the “scientific method” is certainly the best way to investigate nature, we can be fairly sure that it is the best way discovered so far. I think this will depend upon whether or not our culture survives any better than previous ones. Right now I would not bet on it. Knowledge of the universe, of course, is not the same thing as the universe itself and does require a knower. However, it must have some correspondence to the universe in order to qualify as something which we know – what Plato called justified true beliefs. Let us consider briefly the world as known by octopi. They are pretty clever. The question is, would they corroborate our own understanding of the universe? (My background for this attitude is Jacob von Uexküll’s Theoretical Biology.) Thus, as a historian of science, I completely accept that my subject is a story of how we discovered knowledge that corresponds to the universe and rejected those theories that do not. But neither do I want to err in the opposite direction. False theories can nevertheless be useful; true theories can be generated in irrational ways; How to recognize these? By their efficacy in some small project of humanity? STAN intuition can be a powerful theory builder; not all dead ends are blind alleys. So I think we can take a mildly positivist slant on the history of science while still taking on board the lessons of what Jerry and Stan calls postmodernism. Best wishes James Then, to Steven again: I still do not understand the appeal to postmodernism. There does not seem to me to be anything postmodern about "no knowledge outside the knower." Indeed, it is a modern idea developed by logicians of the modern era. I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists, requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von Uexküll's 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the postmodern view is anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal understanding, which modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science, the famous incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics might have engendered a kind of postmodernism. Instead, it has sent many brilliant minds upon the evidently thankless task of trying to ‘square the circle’! STAN
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
