Adrie said to Marsha:
So, concluding, I agree with Dave's remarks on the quote you are always
offering from the moq textbook, ...and that is that Ant has chosen 1 or 2
words a bit uncarefully. (i do not have to quote it back.)
dmb says:
Thanks Adrie. But I don't think Ant was being careless and I do not disagree
with what he's saying. I just think Marsha is reading it badly. She's resting
her case on Ant's use of the term "relative" in describing the provisionality
of truth. To say that truth is relative to a particular historical context
simply means that truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never
final. But that doesn't mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective.
Provisional truths are still constrained by empirical reality. They still have
to agree with experience and function as the best possible explanation as we
move into further experience.
As James puts it, the pragmatist is "pent in" more than anyone. Pragmatic
truths exist "between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from the past",
he says, "and the coercions of the world of sense". In other words, the truth
is constrained by the mythos in which it's stated AND by the empirical reality
in which it's used. This empirical reality is not conceived as a material
reality but it is still a very strong form of empiricism. And that is very
different from relativism.
Richard Rorty, for example, is accused of relativism because he denies the
possibility of empiricism - or any kind of epistemology. He thinks truth is not
something philosophers should even discuss. And since Rorty is the main reviver
of pragmatism, James and Dewey scholars have been defending the classical
pragmatists against charges or relativism all over again. Defending against
this charge has literally been going on for a hundred years. As we can see in
James's complaints about pragmatism's "impudent slanderers", defense against
this charge began while the thing was still being invented.
Adrie said to Marsha:
... * on the point of authority of DMB, i agree there is no one to have the
full authority here. I never take his word for it, I check things out before I
act, and when ever the moment comes that he will make statements making no
sense, or statements that are in conflict with the scientifical evidence, i
will put a spoon up his nose.
dmb says:
Exactly. We're supposed to be persuaded by the arguments and the evidence and
this is CONTRASTED with arguments from authority. Arguments from authority are
based on the assumption that "Thee Truth" is the sole property of some thing or
other. If you believe the bible is the written word of God, for example, there
is no way to argue against that no matter what the evidence is.
Marsha and others seem to be confused about the difference between traditional
forms of social and political "authority" and intellectual "authority". The
latter simply refers to a competent or reliable source of information. That
kind of authority is based on a very reasonable belief, namely that we like to
rely on people who know what they're talking about. I do not think this kind of
authority is any cause for alarm. Nobody should feel persecuted or oppressed by
an encyclopedia entry or a quote from the text we're discussing. Frankly, I
think that kind of reaction is completely ridiculous. What kind of mind resents
the use of openly shared meanings and handy public resources?
What do you call a group of solipsists? Herd? Pack? Flock? I think I like
"clutch". I can't say exactly why but the term seems to express an inward
tension that works. A clutch of solipsists scuttled by today. Yea, that works.
Just having fun. Don't mind me.
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
