Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:48:41 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:23] Re: The Realist Postulate (was: epistemlogy) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ricardo D writes:> ... if we don't know the content of what exists out there, and our perceptions of what is out there are flawed, why should we adopt the "out there" as the *basis* of our knowledge? To this question your answer seems to be that we must assume, postulate, the existence of a reality independently of us if we are to have a rational discussion. < RD: >But in that case it is not a reality out there which is the basis of our knowledge, but our assumption that we must postulate such a reality in order to have a rational discussion.< JD: Right. But I should add that there's a lot of good evidence and reasoning (though it's hardly _conclusive_) that the world does exist outside of my head. Otherwise, you wouldn't have responded to my missive. RD: You see, you were tempted to take the naive realist position. Every one knows there is a world outside our minds; the issue is whether the *foundation* of knowledge is a reality independently of consciousness. JD: Because the existence of the world independent of my consciousness of it (however reasonable) can't be conclusively proven (as far as I know), we need a postulate. So we can move on with more important issues... RD: Epistemology relates to questions of autonomy and authority. When Lenin wrote his Materialism and Epirio-Criticism he wrote it as an attack against those who dare to question a copy-theory of knowldege (naive realist view), implying that his political views were right because they reflected reality as it really was. Epistemology is also about the role of the individual in deciding what he values about the world out there... JD: I should stress that the whole idea of a rational discussion with others _assumes_ the existence of others to have a discussion with and thus the existence of a world "out there." Rationality is a human capacity. Without reason there is no out there to be reflected upon. >Are you tempted to turn to a strictly naive realist position now? < JD: I don't know what a "strictly naive realist position" is (and thus why I should be tempted to turn to it or why you advocate it, since I don't know what _your_ position on this issue is). Please tell. RD: My claim - and I am no specialist in this area - is that the scientific method does tell us what nature is like in a way that is *useful to us*. Moreover, knowledge of the world is not gained through the interaction of a subject with an object, as you assume. This is an individualist, atomistic conception. Our knowledge is always justified socially. JD: I should make it clear that there's another reason for the RP. I think that the rejection of the RP is a key aspect that defines the postmodern mindset when it comes to issues of epistemology. (I can't claim to have done an exhaustive survey of their literature; also, Ajit, who is leaning in the PoMo direction by his own statement in his review of IN DEFENSE OF HISTORY, is also leaning toward the "perceived life is just a dream" theory.) Whether or not one agrees with the PoMotistas, I think the RP can be a useful clarification to understand the debates. RD: I have barely read Rorty, but my first impression is that his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, is more profound than anything Bhaskar has ever written. In Bhaskar's new terminology there is more bombast than substance. He formulates concept after concept merely to tell us that there is a reality out there which must exist if science is to make sense. Dogs don't bother with such concepts; they just eat what they like out there! ricardo [*] Note: I was assuming, for argument's sake and because it was a different issue than the one we were discussing, that Ajit's adopted theory of the multiverse might be accurate. For all I know, it isn't. At lunch, the physicist I was talking to said that there's no evidence for this hypothesis; it's simply an extremely speculative idea for solving the "paradox" of a subatomic particle "being" both a wave and a particle. It seems to me that a more realist -- and realistic -- answer is that of the measurement problem. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
