John said:
I thought relativity meant there's no standard to tell how old time is, or how
big space is. Even though TV and Schoolbooks beg to differ.
dmb says:
If you are talking within the context of physics, "relativity" is about time
and space. In the context of philosophy, however, relativism is a position on
truth and morality. So Einstein's theory is not in dispute here. The dispute is
about epistemological relativity and its relation to the pragmatic theory of
truth. That is the context in which "relativity" means there is no standard by
which to measure things like truth and moral values. As you may have noticed, I
think relativism is a very bad idea with very bad consequences and I think the
pragmatic theory of truth is NOT a form of relativism.
That's what Sam Harris was complaining about, you know? A relativist has no
basis on which he can condemn those Albanian vendetta customs or female genital
mutilation or torture by the American military or the Nazis or anything else.
He's morally and intellectually paralyzed by his own relativism. So Sam is
trying to find a scientific way to condemn objectionable cultural practices.
He's trying to find a way to use "facts" against cruelty and injustice. And he
condemns Rorty's brand of pragmatism because of the relativism he sees in it.
As you may have noticed, I'm very sympathetic with Sam Harris on both counts. I
suppose "science" has to be taken very broadly to include philosophy and
intellectual work in general and I like to think he'd like the original theory
of pragmatic truth a lot more than he likes Rortyism, but I'm still very
sympathetic with Sam.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
