Tal's epistemology (and DCP's)

[_Yoda]

OK, folks....I've done the LAST split on this thread. The teaching comments are in the Off Topic Forum.

Now play nice!

;)

Ok, have enough b**** to post yourt name next to you "red" posts, a******. If youy can;t even be a**** to let us know WHO YOU ARE on this site then you are less than worthless as both an authority figure and as a person.

I have never hidden my identity as a Moderator on this site. I have addressed your individual concerns on the Teaching thread in the Off Topic Forum.

If you have any other concerns, please PM me.

Liz

[_Tarski]

Good topic Tarski! I've been drinking tonight so I'd love to weigh in. I'm not as familiar with Tal as I am you, I'd wager when it comes down to it we're all about on the same page. The main thing I disagree with Tal on in regards to DCP is that I think DCP has been clear that he's in no way moved by postmodernism (in contrast to Ben or Julliann for instance (though Julliann hasn't actually studied it and just throws words around she doesn't understand)) and I believe has taken positions consistent with that view.

Personally, I am not so quick to dismiss all the ideas of Kant, Hume and Kuhn.

I agree. In fact Kuhn in particular, whatever an apologist might gain via his ultimate anti-realism is quickly traded for Kuhn's strict rules for the project of science. Apologists should be more happy with Richard Feynman who believed in Truth yet held the door open for any and all ideas, fearing a tyrannical power fall into the hands of a select few who'd become a modern-day clergy and repress innovation. Kuhn was far less sympathetic to a plurality of theories being on the table. Science should work on the reigning paradigm, and as evidence couldn't be assimilated, slowly but surely a second paradigm would come into play. But he'd slam the door fast on alternative accounts of the ancient Americas. It's highly unlikely that the apologetic account of New World history could ever even be a "paradigm" in the way he intended the term.

One of the innovations of Kuhn and Feyerabend in their sociological understanding of science was to look deeply into the historical context of famous scientific discoveries rather than relying so heavy on imaginative scenarios and thought experiments that analytic philosophy is so fond of. Paul Newall who was a student of Feyerabend's has a great website which I'd say gives a solid and comprehensible case for the sociology of knowledge from an analytic stance.

Postmodernism from the continental tradition I don't think approaches the subject in a way that would make it comprehensible to most people and I agree with you that there are all-too-many overgeneralizations against it - Alan Sokal etc. It's easy to miss the point when the backdrop is phenomenology, Marxism, and semiology rather than straight-forward epistemology.

I think there is a lot of worry by atheists that we need to seal all possible entrance ways to keep religion out, leading to fairly naïve views on what science is. I'm simply interested in what it is at face value and don't care if some room is left for religion to sneak in since I think religion is such a pathetic joke that it in actuality poses no threat.

Thanks for the comments. I hope Tal or DCP make some comments. I also hope the comments aren't full of bitter sarcasm or insults. But maybe that's to much to ask.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Topic has been split.

See the Telestial Forum for the additional snipey comments for those who wish to continue in that vain.

Yopu had something to say, Shades? Do you f***ing see the name "Liz" there at all? And given that BRIGHT F***ING RED is the shade that the Mods use...

Who the f*** di what again?

Oh, yeah, you can't f***ing tell as all, can you, a******?

Mod Note: No F Bombs please-Bond

[_Yoda]

Coffee--

I used the red font because I was doing a Mod action.

I didn't sign my name because I made the comment signed in under my own avatar. My name is on my avatar! I was never hiding a thing!.

The fact that you failed to recognize this is NOT anyone's fault but your own inability to read.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Coffee--

I used the red font because I was doing a Mod action.

I didn't sign my name because I made the comment signed in under my own avatar. My name is on my avatar! I was never hiding a thing!.

The fact that you failed to recognize this is NOT anyone's fault but your own inability to read.

Then use yor "mod might" as such, woman. Tell us you ment it with your own words. Don't hide behind a life..

I had that much more respect for you than that.,.....

I've got a song for you...

[_marg]

I think there is a lot of worry by atheists that we need to seal all possible entrance ways to keep religion out, leading to fairly naïve views on what science is. I'm simply interested in what it is at face value and don't care if some room is left for religion to sneak in since I think religion is such a pathetic joke that it in actuality poses no threat.

Gad a few questions with regards to your quoted comments, what is science at "face value"? What do you consider are "naïve views" on what science is? How is science supposed to have room to let religion sneak in and if so what sort of religious claims are you referring to?

[_Gadianton]

Hold on while I put my steed to water, he's had a long day of running through the streets and crapping on church lawns. Given how tall he is, he can nearly drain a swimming pool so this might take a while........

If I knew what science was at face value, I'd probably be famous. So it's a passing interest that I explore now and then. And if the answers turn out to not straightforwardly shut the door on religion, I don't care.

There are a lot of naïve views on science. But what I had in mind in this post was overly reactive positions against postmodernism or so-called postmodernism or even empericism generally (and then opportunists from religion or fringe science who use it as a vehicle) which try too hard to put science on absolute foundations in fear that literature departments are going to take over the world and turn rocks and trees into metaphors.

[_marg]

Hold on while I put my steed to water, he's had a long day of running through the streets and crapping on church lawns. Given how tall he is, he can nearly drain a swimming pool so this might take a while........

Good, thanks for letting me know you read my comment.

If I knew what science was at face value, I'd probably be famous. So it's a passing interest that I explore now and then. And if the answers turn out to not straightforwardly shut the door on religion, I don't care.

And why should anyone who is intellectually honest want to shut the doors to any claim, religious or not, if the claim is warranted with emperical verifiability?

Religious claims are not shut out. Claims which are not open to emperical verifiability are ignored by the scientific community because they haven't met a burden of proof strong enough to gain acceptance.

There are a lot of naïve views on science. But what I had in mind in this post was overly reactive positions against postmodernism or so-called postmodernism or even empericism generally (and then opportunists from religion or fringe science who use it as a vehicle) which try too hard to put science on absolute foundations in fear that literature departments are going to take over the world and turn rocks and trees into metaphors.

I find there are people who conveniently in argumentation discount possibility of knowledge, their notion of knowledge being "absolute" knowledge. They argue that everyone's views on matters of what we know, are as good as anyone else's. That each person has their own worldview paradigm and so there is no right or wrong, good or bad, no preferential means to evaluate knowledge. It's a convenient argument to make for anyone who is defending beliefs not open to empirical verifiability.

It's not over reactive, Gad to argue against this. And to argue in favor of the scientific method as the best means to gain knowledge of the workings of our physical universe.

[_Gadianton]

And why should anyone who is intellectually honest want to shut the doors to any claim, religious or not, if the claim is warranted with emperical verifiability?

Your summary makes life easy. Yeah, who would have a problem with a claim that is emperically verifiable? In fact, we don't even need to qualify with the word "emperically", heck, who would want to shut the door on any claim that is verifiable? The problem is knowing in advance which claims are verifiable and which ones aren't. And it turns out, claims which seem verifiable might not be and claims that seem not to be might be, or might be important anyway. An overunity engine's true efficiency is emperically verifiable, but do you want to put the time and money into doing the verifying in order to test the claim? M-theory and K-theory are not emperically verifiable, but do we want to trash-can theoretical physics or can we make exceptions to the rule?

I can completely understand why the positivists and Kuhn wished to keep science somewhat theoretically guarded against outrageous claims and have some kind of pre-qual. Others would like to have those protections entirely trivial. The problem is, those protections have always, to my knowledge, failed.

"I find there are people who conveniently in argumentation discount possibility of knowledge, their notion of knowledge being "absolute" knowledge."

Traditionally that's what knowledge is, it's by nature "absolute". If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to be a pragmatist or something that's going to get you labeled eventually as a postmodernist. It's widely regarded that the project of defining knowledge - the study of epistemology - has failed in its ultimate goal.

"They argue that everyone's views on matters of what we know, are as good as anyone else's."

Oh i know, I was just complaining about this on another thread..

"It's not over reactive, Gad to argue against this."

That is true. It is however, not true that all pragmatists, phenomenologists, and postmodernists who's work either challenges traditional epistemology or makes negative implications for it indirectly is trying for Pyrrhonian Skepticism or destroy science. So my argument was that it's an overreaction to attack those who challenge the ideal of certain knowledge for that sake alone. Since you apparently don't believe in certain knowledge, you should be partial to my cause.

[_Tarski]

Hmmm,
Apparently my attempt to get Dan P. and Tal B. in the same "room" without bloodshed has failed because they just didn't show up.