MIckey wrote:
"well maybe we can resurrect this tribe. someone post an interesting topic. not me, i'm horrifically uncreative."
OK, then! Why not touch on something that's been raised in the moderator tempest in a teapot (which may or may not be orbiting between the Earth and Mars, c.f. Bertrand Russell.)
I've noticed that sometimes people from the Land of Woo (sometimes geographically coterminous with California but generally more of a state of mind) will lay claim to being skeptics: They'll say, "I'm skeptical of Science" (or the scientific attitude, whatever they conceive that to be.)
As if science (as in the hypothetico-deductive method or however else one chooses to describe it) weren't generally self-correcting within its area of applicability - and also as if it needed something from outside rational discourse to supervise it. As if ethics weren't also part of rational discourse. And as if emotion and reason weren't already intimately linked (I'm thinking of Dr. Antonio Damasio's work - his book "Descartes' Error", in particular - and also some of Marvin Minsky's recent stuff), so that the frequent criticism that logic is "too cold" is off the mark. (Something which makes Star Trek's Vulcans unintentionally hilarious in their implausibility.)
To be critical of blind spots in the thinking of particular all-too-human scientists, or to point out that the links from "is" to "ought" either aren't inherent in reality or are subtle enough to require some hard thinking (ethical "heavy lifting", in other words), is one thing, but I often see a more explicitly anti-scientific and anti-logical ("Oh, you and and your limited Logic! Just feel!") attitude in place of that, one that rejects scientific and logical thinking wholesale.
Calling an anti-scientific and anti-logical attitude "skepticism" reminds me of theists who try to characterize atheism as just another religion(!) No, no, no!, I want to yell; You're missing the basic point!
<pedantique>
BTW, Fifi, though I'm a transplant to Canada, by now I've read enough philosophy papers (by Canadians) here to note that "skeptic" is spelled either way - "sceptic" is more British, but unlike "colour" vs. "color", and like "-ise" vs. "-ize", the American usage is at least equally prominent here.
From the Wiki:
"The American spelling, akin to Greek, preferred by Fowler, and used by many Canadians, is the earlier form.[104] Sceptic also pre-dates the settlement of the US and follows the French sceptique and Latin scepticus. In the mid-18th century Dr Johnson's dictionary listed skeptic without comment or alternative but this form has never been popular in the UK;[105] sceptic, an equal variant in Webster's Third (1961), has now become "chiefly British". Australians generally follow British usage. All are pronounced with a hard "c", though in French the letter is effectively silent and so confusible with septique."
Hmm, wouldn't want to be confused with "septic", now, here in La Belle Province, would we!
</pedantique>
"well maybe we can resurrect this tribe. someone post an interesting topic. not me, i'm horrifically uncreative."
OK, then! Why not touch on something that's been raised in the moderator tempest in a teapot (which may or may not be orbiting between the Earth and Mars, c.f. Bertrand Russell.)
I've noticed that sometimes people from the Land of Woo (sometimes geographically coterminous with California but generally more of a state of mind) will lay claim to being skeptics: They'll say, "I'm skeptical of Science" (or the scientific attitude, whatever they conceive that to be.)
As if science (as in the hypothetico-deductive method or however else one chooses to describe it) weren't generally self-correcting within its area of applicability - and also as if it needed something from outside rational discourse to supervise it. As if ethics weren't also part of rational discourse. And as if emotion and reason weren't already intimately linked (I'm thinking of Dr. Antonio Damasio's work - his book "Descartes' Error", in particular - and also some of Marvin Minsky's recent stuff), so that the frequent criticism that logic is "too cold" is off the mark. (Something which makes Star Trek's Vulcans unintentionally hilarious in their implausibility.)
To be critical of blind spots in the thinking of particular all-too-human scientists, or to point out that the links from "is" to "ought" either aren't inherent in reality or are subtle enough to require some hard thinking (ethical "heavy lifting", in other words), is one thing, but I often see a more explicitly anti-scientific and anti-logical ("Oh, you and and your limited Logic! Just feel!") attitude in place of that, one that rejects scientific and logical thinking wholesale.
Calling an anti-scientific and anti-logical attitude "skepticism" reminds me of theists who try to characterize atheism as just another religion(!) No, no, no!, I want to yell; You're missing the basic point!
<pedantique>
BTW, Fifi, though I'm a transplant to Canada, by now I've read enough philosophy papers (by Canadians) here to note that "skeptic" is spelled either way - "sceptic" is more British, but unlike "colour" vs. "color", and like "-ise" vs. "-ize", the American usage is at least equally prominent here.
From the Wiki:
"The American spelling, akin to Greek, preferred by Fowler, and used by many Canadians, is the earlier form.[104] Sceptic also pre-dates the settlement of the US and follows the French sceptique and Latin scepticus. In the mid-18th century Dr Johnson's dictionary listed skeptic without comment or alternative but this form has never been popular in the UK;[105] sceptic, an equal variant in Webster's Third (1961), has now become "chiefly British". Australians generally follow British usage. All are pronounced with a hard "c", though in French the letter is effectively silent and so confusible with septique."
Hmm, wouldn't want to be confused with "septic", now, here in La Belle Province, would we!
</pedantique>
posted by:
|
Montreal
|
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Wed, May 7, 2008 - 1:57 PMwell one interesting distinction is between these vague woo warriors saying they're "skeptical of science," and really hardcore post-modern philosophers who insist that the only possible epistemology is to talk about representations, and that we can never really "know" about the "real" world because all of our inputs are being organized through systems of representation. there seems to be a difference between being a "skeptic" and having an absolute critical perspective, where the goal of inquiry is to question assumptions. meaning that goes into endless iterations of questioning, a constant deferral of epistemological certainty, a refocusing of inquiry away from what "is" toward what people say "is".
i don't know, it's an interesting distinction. i personally am immersed in the critical tradition in grad school and find it frustrating, but also think there's a lot there that's important. but thinking about it in relation to my skepticism is odd sometimes.
i mean it's rather like hume, and using induction to confirm inductive reasoning. where does skepticism end and the acceptance of axioms begin? -
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Wed, May 7, 2008 - 2:46 PMYeah, you might also talk about it in terms of the phenomenologists' (Husserl and after, who can be considered the granddaddies of Pomo) point that "objective" reality is inevitably filtered through subjective phenomenological experience. They were critical of "scientism" (Husserl preferred the word "objectivism") without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and took pains to emphasize that they considered phenomenological inquiry to be the starting point for scientific inquiry, not the end of it. If some pomos take it to mean that science cannot uncover any truths, they're going further than Husserl et al wanted to, I think. (I do like a lot of what some of them say - like Derrida & Lyotard - and I consider them to be complementary to the analytical tradition, throwing light on the scientific method from a different angle.)
I think Hume, even though he pointed out the "inductive scandal" behind science, recognized that extreme skepticism in the hardcore philosophical sense was a dead end - at some point you just have to say, OK, this is real. It's fruitless to go down Descartes' "I might be being deceived by a malicious entity" path and doubt *everything* outside your own head - and just stay there in that state. Yes, where does acceptance of axioms begin? And does that require some form of foundationalism? (Philosophical Grabbag 101!) I'm still grappling with the whole realist/anti-realist divide as well.
Good scientists are careful to talk about degrees of certainty, not absolute certainty, and to cultivate the critical questioning of assumptions as an ongoing process, maybe endless, yes, but with progress nonetheless. People of a faith-based bent love to seize upon the lack of absolute certainty: "See! It could all be wrong! 'God did it' could be just as true!" Which completely misunderstands how science works......
But yeah, all a very different matter than "Science leaves so much out, man! Let's take some more E and grok the spirit world! Maybe we can talk to Terrence McKenna's elves!" Those folks wouldn't even know the meanings of epistemology and ontology, much less the difference between them. -
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Wed, May 7, 2008 - 7:05 PM<Good scientists are careful to talk about degrees of certainty>
I always distinguish between speculation and certainty in conversation...online...it's a bit a different....I haven't met these people who declare themselves skeptical about science mostly. Of course we all know there have been plenty of scientific errors in tthe course of history..but they were *proven* scientifically to be without merit..they weren't dismissed ambiguously
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 11:11 AMyeah, but in that sense they're "subordinate" to or a "part of" the analytical tradition. in that their intellectual output can be judged to be worthwhile or not in so far as it is useful in refining and furthering an analytical inquiry into the nature of the universe. a lot of pomo types have a problem with that kind of "hierarchy of knowledge."
"If some pomos take it to mean that science cannot uncover any truths, they're going further than Husserl et al wanted to, I think. (I do like a lot of what some of them say - like Derrida & Lyotard - and I consider them to be complementary to the analytical tradition, throwing light on the scientific method from a different angle.)"
-
-
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Fri, May 9, 2008 - 7:49 AM" ("Oh, you and and your limited Logic! Just feel!")"
That type of thing really irks me because if there is anything that is fickle and untrustworthy it's our own feelings and senses...
If one followed "just feel" then we lose more often in the "Monty Hall dilemma" to pick one example. Because people "feel" like it's best to stick with their choice of door instead of understanding probability (and believe me I've had that explained to me innumerable times and still am perplexed by how counterintuitive it is.)
I heard an interview with Gary Marcus who is putting out a book called Kluge on This Week In Science
www.twis.org/audio/2008/05/06/191/
about the fallibility of our brains without consciously thinking critically about things...that training ourselves to recognize those limitations while interfacing with the world...
Those people who are "skeptical of science" are actually just self protecting their little memeplex from actual analysis, because they are too afraid to let any of it crumble under scrutiny. -
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 7:37 AMTaking into account that Kai and Matthew can probably kick my ass in pure philosophy (and that my take on PoMo theory comes from an art/cultural theory angle), I'll pitch my two cents into the ring....
I find it kind of odd how PoMo has become associated with woo (no doubt I missed some academic battle for supremacy that's left people bitter, though it just seems to me that lots of people don't understand PoMo...and I say this as someone who's critical of some of the premises when applied outside of language/literary theory). Pointing out the subjectivity of the narrative of history isn't saying that things didn't happen, it's just like pointing out that everyone involved in a family dispute will have a different experience of the dispute. In the pre-PoMo days this was summed up as "the winners write history". I find it odd how the basic idea of the subjectivity of personal experience has been extrapolated into reality doesn't exist...last time I checked when Foucault was talking about the panopticon he wasn't proposing that prisons were a figment of anyone's subjective experience or imagination.
Pure logic can be pretty inhumane ultimately and people have proven that they can rationalize all kinds of idiocy. Empathy is a pretty crucial and natural part of being human and, thankfully, enters into decision making processes unless we're incapable of it. If we're incapable of empathy then we don't have the tools to make humane decisions. I've found that people who don't acknowledge their own emotions are going to be just as influenced by them but much less aware of their biases. Really, the whole point of the scientific method is to minimize all these acknowledged problematic areas in human perception, the innate subjectivity of our personal perspective and confirmation bias. -
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 8:34 AMlast time I checked when Foucault was talking about the panopticon he wasn't proposing that prisons were a figment of anyone's subjective experience or imagination.
Er, that's probably poorly expressed since actually the panopticon (as concept and social structure) is an aspect of both our subjective experience and objective reality. I was trying to say that it wasn't merely subjective. -
-
Re: Distorting the meaning of the word "skeptic"
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 11:53 AMright, i agree with foucault insofar as that is what he's saying. and he is one of the more reasonable ones. though, i think it's often not so much a matter of not understanding postmodernism, but of following through on what postmodernism says to its logical conclusion. and most postmodernists are too bogged down in their obscure writing style to make doing that clear or easy. or perhaps, and this is what i believe, their ideas are pointing to important aspects of social structure and human experience, but they lack ultimate clarity or coherance because they are necessarily tentative and suggestive, but don't couch their language in appropriately tentative form. for example, foucault is most definitely saying that our thoughts and bodies are shaped by culture, penetrated by culture, and to use the ultimate vague pomo word in this regard "constituted" by culture. the point where i think the incoherance comes in is that they are necessarily vague about whether or not "objective reality" exists at all, if pressed i would assume they were rather agnostic about it, but in their writing they seem to be insisting that it is not possible to construct an epistemology that addresses objective reality. even indirectly. because the mediation through human systems of representation will aways distort that reality, if it exists at all, to such an extent that what you're talkin about is systems of representation not reality. now i think that that points to important problems in constructing an effective epistemology, but i think that they're challenges that should be overcome. where postmodernists and i differ is that "should." postermodernists see it as their intellectual goal to investigate "shoulds" rather than objective reality, and seem to be saying that all you can investigate is shoulds.
-
-
-
