|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 29, 2019 12:01:15 GMT -5
Well it had to happen eventually. Some postmodernists have tried to make comments on science, but their claims have been so absurd a, it's laughable.
Isn't that an ad hominem? Well what else are you supposed to say when they make claims like the male organ is related to the square root of minus 1, or E=mc^2 is a sexed equation?
This time, however, it is a scientist making the claims.
That's exactly the point. If you reach a conclusion based on certain concepts and then destroy the original concepts. That's like trying to put up a building and then claim that if you eliminate the foundation and first floor, the rest of the building will still be there floating in mid-air.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 12:06:22 GMT -5
Can you explain where you can find postmodernist ideas there?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 29, 2019 15:39:32 GMT -5
Can you explain where you can find postmodernist ideas there?
In the first paragraph:
"He attributes existence solely to descriptions, while incongruously denying the very thing that is described in the first place. "
But descriptions can change, can't they?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 1:50:16 GMT -5
How is that "postmodernist"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 30, 2019 10:28:19 GMT -5
How is that "postmodernist"?
How can you tell if one description is better than another?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 9:37:15 GMT -5
If you are interesting in actually reading what this guy has to say, here is an article I found where he explains his approach:
I won't quote it extensively here because the PDF messes up the formatting of quotes here, or vice versa. You can read it for yourself if you like, the article is only three pages long and uses very concise and simple language to describe Tegmark's ideas.
He thinks human language is insufficient to describe physical reality objectively. Since he believes mathematics to be objectively true independently of any human mind, he argues that we must start describing objective reality using pure mathematics instead.
|
|
ppnl
Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ppnl on Apr 9, 2019 23:57:21 GMT -5
Bob.
Max Tegmark is a radical Platonist, not a postmodernist. These are very different things.
You may in a deeper sense claim that they are both making the same type of mistake of confusing the map with the territory. But Platonists are comprehensible, in the sense of being understandable even if you find them illogical or wrong, while postmodernists are mostly just incoherent. The difference may be that language simply isn't up to the task while math just might be. Or maybe not.
The problem we all face is that we can only deal with the universe indirectly through some description of it. It is hard not to confuse the map with the territory. The more abstract the territory the more tempting it is. Max Tegmark deals with very abstract territory.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 13:29:39 GMT -5
Bob. Max Tegmark is a radical Platonist, not a postmodernist. These are very different things. You may in a deeper sense claim that they are both making the same type of mistake of confusing the map with the territory. But Platonists are comprehensible, in the sense of being understandable even if you find them illogical or wrong, while postmodernists are mostly just incoherent. The difference may be that language simply isn't up to the task while math just might be. Or maybe not. The problem we all face is that we can only deal with the universe indirectly through some description of it. It is hard not to confuse the map with the territory. The more abstract the territory the more tempting it is. Max Tegmark deals with very abstract territory.
Yes. I agree with you here. I read his original article. The review in Scientific American gave a distorted version of his views.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:40:46 GMT -5
while postmodernists are mostly just incoherent. Can you substantiate that claim, or is this just an overgeneralizing insult?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:25:12 GMT -5
while postmodernists are mostly just incoherent. Can you substantiate that claim, or is this just an overgeneralizing insult? I've substantiated that claim on many posts here over the years. There is a whole book on postmodernist Self-Referential Inconsistency by David Detmer, who describes himself as a left-winger. The title is Challenging Postmodernism: Philosophy and the Politics of Truth. Take a look at it. Self-referential inconsistencies ARE incoherent. So this is a description, not an insult. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 19:08:13 GMT -5
I wasn't talking to you.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 20:40:15 GMT -5
|
|
ppnl
Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ppnl on Apr 16, 2019 22:58:11 GMT -5
while postmodernists are mostly just incoherent. Can you substantiate that claim, or is this just an overgeneralizing insult?
Well... we can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.
But seriously, it isn't clear what you want. If I can't make sense of most of it then it seems mostly incoherent. The penis is equivalent to the sqrt(-1)? E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'? Turbulent flow cannot be solved because fluidity is associated with femininity and vaginal flows? And Sokal proved that more intelligent people than I fail to find any meaning. A stupid wall of text is a stupid wall of text no matter if the subject is imaginary numbers vs dicks or time cubed.
It may seem that my criticism is very harsh but actually, I think there could maybe be some value to the program. It's just that postmodernists do it so very very badly.
If you want to discuss modernism vs postmodernism I suggest this as a reference to index the differences:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 7:45:31 GMT -5
Can you substantiate that claim, or is this just an overgeneralizing insult? Well... we can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. But seriously, it isn't clear what you want. If I can't make sense of most of it then it seems mostly incoherent. The penis is equivalent to the sqrt(-1)? E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'? Turbulent flow cannot be solved because fluidity is associated with femininity and vaginal flows? And Sokal proved that more intelligent people than I fail to find any meaning. A stupid wall of text is a stupid wall of text no matter if the subject is imaginary numbers vs dicks or time cubed. It may seem that my criticism is very harsh but actually, I think there could maybe be some value to the program. It's just that postmodernists do it so very very badly. If you want to discuss modernism vs postmodernism I suggest this as a reference to index the differences: By that logic, Quantum Physics is "incoherent" because, so far, I personally haven't understood how it works. Put simply, your personal failure of understanding is neither strong evidence in favor nor against the supposed incoherence of a particular philosophical position or scientific theory. Sokal largely "proved" that intellectually dishonest people are capable of writing a best selling polemics against a philosophical movement well past its prime. Personally, I find Modernism utterly inconsistent with a skeptic attitude towards truth and reasoning. If you to learn something about "Postmodernism" from the POV of a self described adherent of postmodern philosophy, I posted a Youtube link in the video section of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2019 12:50:47 GMT -5
Well... we can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. But seriously, it isn't clear what you want. If I can't make sense of most of it then it seems mostly incoherent. The penis is equivalent to the sqrt(-1)? E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'? Turbulent flow cannot be solved because fluidity is associated with femininity and vaginal flows? And Sokal proved that more intelligent people than I fail to find any meaning. A stupid wall of text is a stupid wall of text no matter if the subject is imaginary numbers vs dicks or time cubed. www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=vJy2XIC3E-mQ0gK2ja7QCQ&q=time+cubed&btnK=GoogleIt may seem that my criticism is very harsh but actually, I think there could maybe be some value to the program. It's just that postmodernists do it so very very badly. If you want to discuss modernism vs postmodernism I suggest this as a reference to index the differences: www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/modernism_vs_Postmodernism.htmBy that logic, Quantum Physics is "incoherent" because, so far, I personally haven't understood how it works. Put simply, your personal failure of understanding is neither strong evidence in favor nor against the supposed incoherence of a particular philosophical position or scientific theory. Actually, the claims that E=mc^@ is a "sexed equation and that turbulent flow cannot be solved is associated with "femininity" are incoherent because no demonstration has ever been given that they are correct. Since proof is absent, these are only unsupported Dogmatic Assertions. Once again, this is a Dogmatic Assertion without any supporting evidence (and an Ad Hominem to boot). Supporting evidence please. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 23:11:41 GMT -5
Once again, this is a Dogmatic Assertion without any supporting evidence (and an Ad Hominem to boot). Sokal wrote his book at the tail end of a scandal that he himself provoked by sending a fake article to an academic journal. His claim to fame as a critic of postmodern philosophy is based on an act of intellectual dishonesty. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 23:16:49 GMT -5
Supporting evidence please. Bob Skepticism approaches any and all claims as being subject to rational doubt. The logical consequence of Skepticism is that all knowledge is fundamentally in doubt, including Skepticism itself. Modernist beliefs (Marxism, Randianism, Positivism, Psychoanalysis, Phenomenology etc.) are based on the premise that people have already attained an objective and correct view of reality. Therefore, these beliefs cannot maintain a skeptic attitude towards their own narrative, and so Modernism is incompatible with a Skeptic approach towards knowledge.
In fact, the only philosophical model of belief I have encountered that seems compatible with Skepticism, so far, seems to be Postmodernism.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 2:05:41 GMT -5
Supporting evidence please. Bob Skepticism approaches any and all claims as being subject to rational doubt. The logical consequence of Skepticism is that all knowledge is fundamentally in doubt, including Skepticism itself. The key phrase here is "rational doubt." What exactly is "rational doubt?" How are you using that term? Well I certainly agree with you about Marxism (which has become more like a secular religion). But that certainly doesn't apply to science (although it might to some scientists). Science is self-correcting. The envelope is always being pushed. Scientists keep investigating standard theories to see how far they can go. Reaching a point where a standard theory breaks down is actually cause for them to celebrate! As far as Objectivism is concerned, there has never been any claim of omniscience. Quite the contrary. "In turning to the question: does reason lead man to certainty? I must begin by reaffirming that human knowledge is limited. At every stage of conceptual development, a man has specific cognitive context; he knows something but not everything. Only on the basis of this delimited information can he gain new knowledge... The point is that one cannot demand omniscience. One cannot ask: 'How do I know that a given idea, even if it has been proved on the basis of all the knowledge men have gained so far, will not be overthrown one day by new information as yet undiscovered?' This plaint is tantamount to the declaration: 'Human knowledge is limited so we cannot trust any of our conclusions.'And this amounts to taking the myth of an infinite God as the epistemological standard, by reference to which man's consciousness is condemned as impotent." Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, pgs. 171-172 A little bit of skepticism can be healthy. Postmodernism takes skepticism to the extreme. And that leads to Self-Referential Inconsistency. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 11:21:12 GMT -5
There is no belief system called "science". "Science" is simply the work done by scientists. The word you are looking for is Scientific Positivism, which is the belief that scientific findings are objectively correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 11:24:02 GMT -5
"In turning to the question: does reason lead man to certainty? I must begin by reaffirming that human knowledge is limited. At every stage of conceptual development, a man has specific cognitive context; he knows something but not everything. Only on the basis of this delimited information can he gain new knowledge... The point is that one cannot demand omniscience. One cannot ask: 'How do I know that a given idea, even if it has been proved on the basis of all the knowledge men have gained so far, will not be overthrown one day by new information as yet undiscovered?' This plaint is tantamount to the declaration: 'Human knowledge is limited so we cannot trust any of our conclusions.'And this amounts to taking the myth of an infinite God as the epistemological standard, by reference to which man's consciousness is condemned as impotent." And yet she did not apply that same attitude towards her own beliefs and her own reasoning. All new information that could conceivably lead Objectivists astray is Fake News, any reasoning not in line with the Randian dogma is that of Moochers, Leeches, and Suicidal Animals. There is only one Truth, and Ayn Rand was its Prophet. A little bit of skepticism can be healthy. Postmodernism takes skepticism to the extreme. And that leads to Self-Referential Inconsistency. Skepticism necessarily leads to Self-Referential Inconsistency. The other option is to abandon Skepticism in favor of a Modernist narrative, which is what e.g. you have done when you accepted Ayn Rand's Revelations as absolute truth and objective fact.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 12:22:50 GMT -5
There is no belief system called "science". "Science" is simply the work done by scientists. The word you are looking for is Scientific Positivism, which is the belief that scientific findings are objectively correct.
If science "is simply the work done by scientists", then what about bad science? How can you tell the difference between bad science and good science? After all, both bad scientists and good scientists do work.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 12:43:42 GMT -5
"In turning to the question: does reason lead man to certainty? I must begin by reaffirming that human knowledge is limited. At every stage of conceptual development, a man has specific cognitive context; he knows something but not everything. Only on the basis of this delimited information can he gain new knowledge... The point is that one cannot demand omniscience. One cannot ask: 'How do I know that a given idea, even if it has been proved on the basis of all the knowledge men have gained so far, will not be overthrown one day by new information as yet undiscovered?' This plaint is tantamount to the declaration: 'Human knowledge is limited so we cannot trust any of our conclusions.'And this amounts to taking the myth of an infinite God as the epistemological standard, by reference to which man's consciousness is condemned as impotent." And yet she did not apply that same attitude towards her own beliefs and her own reasoning. All new information that could conceivably lead Objectivists astray is Fake News, any reasoning not in line with the Randian dogma is that of Moochers, Leeches, and Suicidal Animals. There is only one Truth, and Ayn Rand was its Prophet. Ad Hominem. 1)Christians believe that "Thou shalt not steal", Thou shalt not kill", and Thou shalt not lie." 2)Many Christians do not follow those beliefs. 3)Therefore these beliefs must be false and we should steal, kill, and lie. From the fact that a belief isn't practiced, it dos not follow that the belief is wrong. LOL! "Self-Referential Inconsistency" doesn't even rise to the level of falsehood. It is incoherent nonsense. Not only that, but you cannot consistently practice that and live. Every time you eat or drink you may be taking in poison. Right? It never ceases to amaze me how you manage to commit more than one logical Fallacy in one sentence. Rand never claimed that her philosophy was based on "Revelations" or that it was "absolute truth", so your claim here is a Strawman Fallacy. It's also an Ad Hominem since you have said nothing about her claims or presented any evidence that they are false. Do you have any Facts to offer? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:48:19 GMT -5
There is no belief system called "science". "Science" is simply the work done by scientists. The word you are looking for is Scientific Positivism, which is the belief that scientific findings are objectively correct. If science "is simply the work done by scientists", then what about bad science?
Bob
What about it? Bad work is work done badly. The term "science" is neither a moral judgement, nor a seal of quality. Unless you subscribe to the belief of Scienticic Positivism, which does indeed argue that "science" is objectively correct truth, and vice versa. Bad science does not properly follow scientific procedure and methodology. That doesn't mean that bad scientists don't do science, they just do it badly, hence the term " bad science".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 13:01:58 GMT -5
If science "is simply the work done by scientists", then what about bad science? What about it? Bad work is work done badly. The term "science" is neither a moral judgement, nor a seal of quality. Unless you subscribe to the belief of Scienticic Positivism, which does indeed argue that "science" is objectively correct truth, and vice versa. You're missing the point here. How can you even tell if the work of a scientist is good or bad? But what if you do properly follow scientific procedure and methodology and get a wrong result? It has happened. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:04:50 GMT -5
And yet she did not apply that same attitude towards her own beliefs and her own reasoning. All new information that could conceivably lead Objectivists astray is Fake News, any reasoning not in line with the Randian dogma is that of Moochers, Leeches, and Suicidal Animals. There is only one Truth, and Ayn Rand was its Prophet. Ad Hominem. "Ad hominem" is not a magical spell that makes arguments you dislike go away. You have to conclusively demonstrate that an argument does, in fact, commit an ad hominem fallacy. Since you have failed to do so, this is just a nonsense reply. Do you have anything to refute my argument that Ayn Rand never applied her skepticism towards her own belief and reasoning? Anything at all? Yes, so far your replies are indeed incoherent nonsense. Have you considered actually adressing my arguments? And it never ceases to amaze me how you consistently fail to rise to the effort of demonstrating logical fallacies every single time you bring them up. Once again, you have to demonstrate that a fallacy has occcurred. Your involvement doesn't end with simply crying "fallacy" whenever you dislike where an argument is going. And once again, you don't even bother to actually demonstrate how a fallacy has been committed, and instead seem to believe that simply crying "fallacy" is enough make a disliked argument go away. My claim wasn't based on what Rand said about her philosophy, but about what her philosophy is and how it is being followed by her supporters. Rand asserts her claims as absolute fact in the same style as religious revelations like the Quran. She makes no arguments, she makes assertions of fact that are being treated by her followers as absolute undisprovable truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:07:49 GMT -5
What about it? Bad work is work done badly. The term "science" is neither a moral judgement, nor a seal of quality. Unless you subscribe to the belief of Scienticic Positivism, which does indeed argue that "science" is objectively correct truth, and vice versa. You're missing the point here. How can you even tell if the work of a scientist is good or bad? By looking at how well they followed the scientific methods and procedures pertaining to their field of study. Then you got a wrong result while doing science correctly. So what? You seem to be under the mistaken belief that "science" means "making correct claims" when it actually means "the work of scientists".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 14:34:37 GMT -5
You're missing the point here. How can you even tell if the work of a scientist is good or bad? By looking at how well they followed the scientific methods and procedures pertaining to their field of study. So you're saying it doesn't matter if the results are good or bad, valid or invalid? No. Science does not mean "the work of scientists." " 2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scienceNo mention of "the work of scientists" here. Or here: "1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. ‘the world of science and technology’ 1.1 A particular area of science. ‘veterinary science’ count noun ‘the agricultural sciences’ 1.2 A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject. ‘the science of criminology’ en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scienceBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 15:38:32 GMT -5
By looking at how well they followed the scientific methods and procedures pertaining to their field of study. So you're saying it doesn't matter if the results are good or bad, valid or invalid? Complex question fallacy. If scientific procedures and scientific methodology are being followed properly, then the study was scientifically valid. The results of a study have nothing to do with its scientific validity. And you still haven't responded to my claim that "science" does not mean "making correct claims".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 18:22:31 GMT -5
So you're saying it doesn't matter if the results are good or bad, valid or invalid? Complex question fallacy. If scientific procedures and scientific methodology are being followed properly, then the study was scientifically valid. The results of a study have nothing to do with its scientific validity. I think you might get a lot of arguments from scientists on that one. Scientific studies stand a much better chance of producing valid results. Of course "science" doesn't mean making correct claims. Science is a method which is more likely to produce correct claims AND to correct claims that are incorrect. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 9:56:44 GMT -5
Complex question fallacy. If scientific procedures and scientific methodology are being followed properly, then the study was scientifically valid. The results of a study have nothing to do with its scientific validity. I think you might get a lot of arguments from scientists on that one. Scientific studies stand a much better chance of producing valid results. I'm certain that most scientists would agree with me that "wrong" and "invalid" are not synonyms. So to you, science is a lesser and more wrong version of Objectivism?
|
|