Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Dr.B. Karthik Navayan]

Well said

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018, 12:12 am Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
wrote:

> Dr. Navayan-
>
> I visited your blog; it provides a useful forum for people with
>
> serious interest in human rights issues in  India.  That certainly is a
>
> valuable endeavor but not something I know enough about  to
>
> offer informed commentary.  I'm not  totally in the dark about  India
>
> but my knowledge is spotty. Maybe some year I will have the
>
> opportunity to visit India and become far better informed.
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree that *pursuit of objectivity* is what we need to focus on.
>
> Nobody can possibly be objective about everything, and, as well,
>
> it is important to be honest about our limitations. Still, as a college
>
> teacher even if I am retired, one lesson you learn is that you
>
> are responsible for presenting verified facts to your students
>
> as much as possible, and tell them the basis of evidence
>
> that supports knowing something as a "fact."  This is not
>
> all that difficult   --at least if someone does not take
>
> known facts and then make claims about things
>
> that remain uncertain.
>
>
> I don't expect a cardiologist to know 100% of everything
>
> that can be known about the heart   -but do expect him
>
> to work with established facts if he needs to open my chest
>
> and do bypass surgery.  Teaching history or social science
>
> is not nearly as dramatic but a similar principle applies.
>
> I am obliged to tell the truth about the Mughals or the
>
> Roman Empire but when truths are not known it is
>
> just as vital to admit that things are not certain and
>
> evidence still is missing,
>
>
> In other words, I think we are on the same page.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Billy R.
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------
> *From:* Centroids <drer...@radicalcentrism.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 9, 2018 6:28 AM
> *To:* Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
> *Cc:* Billy Rojas; radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?
>
> Hi Billy,
>
> Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a
> goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved
> objectivity.”
>
> E
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Billy,
> Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Navayan:
>>
>> I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and
>> subjectivity
>>
>> useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.
>>
>>
>> May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit
>> your site.
>>
>>
>> sincerely
>>
>> Billy Rojas
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From:* Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
>> *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
>> *Cc:* Centroids; Billy Rojas
>> *Subject:* Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?
>>
>> Billy Rojas,
>> I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With
>> your name.
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <
>> 1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> *Ernie:*
>>>
>>> There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there
>>> is
>>>
>>> no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my
>>> viewpoint
>>>
>>> is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.
>>>
>>>
>>> Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a
>>> procedure
>>>
>>> like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to
>>> predict the weather
>>>
>>> or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology)
>>> earthquakes
>>>
>>> in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design
>>> great bridges
>>>
>>> that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for
>>> a wide
>>>
>>> variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics t

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Billy Rojas]

Dr. Navayan-

I visited your blog; it provides a useful forum for people with

serious interest in human rights issues in  India.  That certainly is a

valuable endeavor but not something I know enough about  to

offer informed commentary.  I'm not  totally in the dark about  India

but my knowledge is spotty. Maybe some year I will have the

opportunity to visit India and become far better informed.



Yes, I agree that pursuit of objectivity is what we need to focus on.

Nobody can possibly be objective about everything, and, as well,

it is important to be honest about our limitations. Still, as a college

teacher even if I am retired, one lesson you learn is that you

are responsible for presenting verified facts to your students

as much as possible, and tell them the basis of evidence

that supports knowing something as a "fact."  This is not

all that difficult   --at least if someone does not take

known facts and then make claims about things

that remain uncertain.


I don't expect a cardiologist to know 100% of everything

that can be known about the heart   -but do expect him

to work with established facts if he needs to open my chest

and do bypass surgery.  Teaching history or social science

is not nearly as dramatic but a similar principle applies.

I am obliged to tell the truth about the Mughals or the

Roman Empire but when truths are not known it is

just as vital to admit that things are not certain and

evidence still is missing,


In other words, I think we are on the same page.


Best wishes

Billy R.


---












From: Centroids <drer...@radicalcentrism.org>
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan
Cc: Billy Rojas; radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Hi Billy,

Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a 
goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved objectivity.”

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B. Karthik Navayan 
<nava...@gmail.com<mailto:nava...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Billy,
Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Dr. Navayan:

I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity

useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.


May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your site.


sincerely

Billy Rojas




From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com<mailto:nava...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Billy Rojas,
I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your 
name.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Ernie:

There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is

no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my viewpoint

is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.


Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a procedure

like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict the 
weather

or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) earthquakes

in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design great 
bridges

that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a wide

variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology

to molecular engineering.


We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters

to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far

there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how

far we have progressed since, say, 1750.


Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases

where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play

which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.


That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard the

worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
senses.

However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences

to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific

scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this

manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinkin

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Centroids]

Hi Billy,

Well said. I think we are aligned around “the pursuit of objectivity” as a 
goal; my main quibble is with those who claim to have “achieved objectivity.”

E

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:29, Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Billy,
> Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/
> 
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> 
>> wrote:
>> Dr. Navayan:
>> 
>> I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity
>> 
>> useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.
>> 
>> 
>> May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your 
>> site.
>> 
>> 
>> sincerely
>> 
>> Billy Rojas
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
>> To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
>> Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas
>> Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?
>>  
>> Billy Rojas,
>> I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With 
>> your name. 
>> 
>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> Ernie:
>>> 
>>> There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is
>>> 
>>> no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my 
>>> viewpoint
>>> 
>>> is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a 
>>> procedure
>>> 
>>> like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict 
>>> the weather
>>> 
>>> or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) 
>>> earthquakes
>>> 
>>> in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design 
>>> great bridges
>>> 
>>> that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a 
>>> wide 
>>> variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology
>>> 
>>> to molecular engineering.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters
>>> 
>>> to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far
>>> 
>>> there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how
>>> 
>>> far we have progressed since, say, 1750. 
>>> 
>>> Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases
>>> 
>>> where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play
>>> 
>>> which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard 
>>> the
>>> 
>>> worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
>>> senses.
>>> 
>>> However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences
>>> 
>>> to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific
>>> 
>>> scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this
>>> 
>>> manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking
>>> 
>>> set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to
>>> 
>>> microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and
>>> 
>>> understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term
>>> 
>>> "religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized
>>> 
>>> as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.
>>> 
>>> To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard 
>>> vocabulary
>>> 
>>> of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and
>>> 
>>> then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not
>>> 
>>> muddy the waters.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This said, there is far better language available to talk about
>>> 
>>> religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Dr.B. Karthik Navayan]

Dear Billy,
Here you go https://karthiknavayan.wordpress.com/about/

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 8:52 am Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
wrote:

> Dr. Navayan:
>
> I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and
> subjectivity
>
> useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.
>
>
> May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your
> site.
>
>
> sincerely
>
> Billy Rojas
>
>
> 
> --
> *From:* Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
> *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
> *Cc:* Centroids; Billy Rojas
> *Subject:* Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?
>
> Billy Rojas,
> I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With
> your name.
>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *Ernie:*
>>
>> There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there
>> is
>>
>> no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my
>> viewpoint
>>
>> is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.
>>
>>
>> Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a
>> procedure
>>
>> like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict
>> the weather
>>
>> or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology)
>> earthquakes
>>
>> in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design
>> great bridges
>>
>> that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a
>> wide
>>
>> variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology
>>
>> to molecular engineering.
>>
>>
>> We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters
>>
>> to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far
>>
>> there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how
>>
>> far we have progressed since, say, 1750.
>>
>>
>> Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all
>> cases
>>
>> where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play
>>
>> which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I
>> disregard the
>>
>> worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many
>> senses.
>>
>> However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences
>>
>> to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific
>>
>> scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this
>>
>> manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking
>>
>> set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to
>>
>> microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and
>>
>> understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term
>>
>> "religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized
>>
>> as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.
>>
>>
>> To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard
>> vocabulary
>>
>> of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and
>>
>> then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not
>>
>> muddy the waters.
>>
>>
>>
>> This said, there is far better language available to talk about
>>
>> religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions.
>>
>> Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by
>>
>> Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes,
>>
>> or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada.
>>
>>
>>
>> Billy
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Centroids <drer...@radicalcentrism.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM
>> *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
>> *Cc:* Billy Rojas
>> *Subject:* Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a
>> S

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Billy Rojas]

Dr. Navayan:

I am gratified that you regard my comments about objectivity and subjectivity

useful. Of course, feel free to make use of the material on your blog.


May I ask the name of your blog?  I'm curious and would like to visit your site.


sincerely

Billy Rojas




From: Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <nava...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:21 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
Cc: Centroids; Billy Rojas
Subject: Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

Billy Rojas,
I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your 
name.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:

Ernie:

There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is

no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my viewpoint

is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.


Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a procedure

like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict the 
weather

or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) earthquakes

in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design great 
bridges

that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a wide

variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology

to molecular engineering.


We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters

to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far

there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how

far we have progressed since, say, 1750.


Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases

where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play

which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.


That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard the

worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many 
senses.

However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences

to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific

scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this

manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking

set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to

microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and

understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term

"religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized

as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.


To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard vocabulary

of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and

then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not

muddy the waters.



This said, there is far better language available to talk about

religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions.

Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by

Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes,

or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada.



Billy










From: Centroids 
<drer...@radicalcentrism.org<mailto:drer...@radicalcentrism.org>>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM
To: RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com<mailto:RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Billy Rojas
Subject: Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a Social 
Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus

I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word 
“objectivity.”  How do you define it?

For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to 
affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having to 
defend a claim to objectivity.

E

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas 
<1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com<mailto:1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>> wrote:


The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible anyway,

is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s,

Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity

in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide

to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence

to virulent strains of populism.


Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version

of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since.

It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into

full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms.


Finally, I define RC in large 

Re: [RC] Re: Objectivity [ RC ] Is Science a Social Construct?

[Dr.B. Karthik Navayan]

Billy Rojas,
I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With
your name.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
wrote:

> *Ernie:*
>
> There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is
>
> no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my
> viewpoint
>
> is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce.
>
>
> Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a
> procedure
>
> like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict
> the weather
>
> or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology)
> earthquakes
>
> in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design
> great bridges
>
> that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a
> wide
>
> variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology
>
> to molecular engineering.
>
>
> We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters
>
> to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar.  So far
>
> there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how
>
> far we have progressed since, say, 1750.
>
>
> Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases
>
> where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play
>
> which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method.
>
>
> That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard
> the
>
> worth and reality of the spiritual realm;  and this is subjective in many
> senses.
>
> However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences
>
> to religion, either.  Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific
>
> scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain.  As such this
>
> manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking
>
> set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to
>
> microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and
>
> understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term
>
> "religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized
>
> as communication from a life-affirming unseen source.
>
>
> To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard
> vocabulary
>
> of "objective" and "subjective."   I may well adopt a neologism now and
>
> then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not
>
> muddy the waters.
>
>
>
> This said, there is far better language available to talk about
>
> religion  -aka spirituality-  than with antiseptic terms and abstractions.
>
> Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by
>
> Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes,
>
> or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada.
>
>
>
> Billy
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Centroids 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM
> *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com
> *Cc:* Billy Rojas
> *Subject:* Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a
> Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus
>
> I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word
> “objectivity.”  How do you define it?
>
> For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to
> affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having
> to defend a claim to objectivity.
>
> E
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com>
> wrote:
>
> The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible
> anyway,
>
> is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s,
>
> Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity
>
> in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide
>
> to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence
>
> to virulent strains of populism.
>
>
> Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version
>
> of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since.
>
> It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into
>
> full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms.
>
>
> Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered.
>
> This refers to the scientific method, or as much of that method
>
> as we can make use of in ordinary prose. For me this means
>
> that objectivity, as much  objectivity as possible,
>
> is the necessary foundation of Radical Centrism.
>
> --
> --
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <
> RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Centroids: The Center of