> > On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> "Eubulides" <[email protected]> >> >> > Could you give us some evidence of how an ism, which is not an agent, can >> > reject reason and science? >> >> There is racism and plenty of religions that do so as part of their >> principles. I think that postmodernism does essentially that. >> >> > Do you you have an indefeasible theory of rationality as it pertains to a >> > way of cognizing that is constitutive of science? >> >> I don't claim to be able to identify all those theories that claim to use >> the scientific method, but don't. Those theories are called pseudosciences >> and critical thinking skills are needed to expose their fallacies. >> >> > Additionally, could you give us an actual, democratically negotiated, >> > parsing of the claimed boundary between the economy and that in society >> > which is not the economy? >> >> Marx uses the criteria of commodities (products and services) that are sold. >> His theory could be expanded to cover other things in the economy such as >> pollution. >> >> > Inquiring minds want to know. >> >> Do you have a list of those inquiring minds? >> >> Is there a need to discuss philosophical issues? >> >> -- >> Ron > > ========== > > Religions are not agents, either. > > I’ll lower my expectations; can you point me to one text that is by a > self-identifying postmodernist that rejects science and rationality, the > author of which has had any sort of impact on contemporary societies > scientific research programs? Then we could perhaps have a discussion about > how postmodernism has done more to harm science and rationality than, say, > legislators in the congresses and parliaments of the world? > > There are all too few fallacy-free theories created by humans; sorry to > disappoint. One could argue it’s a fallacy to be desirous of a fallacy-free > theory or to hold that up as an a priori [a problematic term if ever there > was one] norm of rationality. > > I do have a list; it’s too big to share on pen-l. > > There will always be a need to philosophize; to paraphrase Keynes, we’re all > too often unwitting slaves of defunct philosophers, too. Like you and > everyone else on this list, I’m not into slavery. > > E. >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
