|
vivalargo
Nov 22, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #1 of 57
(1246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
. . . at least according to this guy. Interesting.
http://www.stevedenning.com/postmodern.html
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Nov 22, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #2 of 57
(1227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
In reply to: science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge; science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal; science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 22, 2006, 7:24 PM
Post #3 of 57
(1217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: In reply to: science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge; science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal; science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life. All of the above is imposed on science by non-scientists. Lyotard keeps making all sorts of unsubstantiated statements that one is expected to take at face value. Science is a method, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a philosophy.
I believe what the Frenchy is saying is that the idea that science is "pure method' is itself a fiction, and that so long as it's governed by people, said people will be governed by the same biases, and will be prone to making the same "objective" claims about their work, as everone else. It's not so much the methodology he rails against, rather the claim that science yields a product that is fundamentally different (purely objective) than any other field of inquiry. Ironically, the need to do so is, in his eyes, the same urge that drives fundamantalist religious figures to insist that they "know" the truth. And to the Frenchy, facts and figures and measurements are not the truth itself. They are merely data.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Nov 22, 2006, 8:38 PM
Post #4 of 57
(1187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
In reply to: I believe what the Frenchy is saying is that the idea that science is "pure method' is itself a fiction, and that so long as it's governed by people, said people will be governed by the same biases, and will be prone to making the same "objective" claims about their work, as everone else. It's not so much the methodology he rails against, rather the claim that science yields a product that is fundamentally different (purely objective) than any other field of inquiry. Ironically, the need to do so is, in his eyes, the same urge that drives fundamantalist religious figures to insist that they "know" the truth. And to the Frenchy, facts and figures and measurements are not the truth itself. They are merely data. JL
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 22, 2006, 8:58 PM
Post #5 of 57
(1176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I believe what the Frenchy is saying is that the idea that science is "pure method' is itself a fiction, and that so long as it's governed by people, said people will be governed by the same biases, and will be prone to making the same "objective" claims about their work, as everone else. It's not so much the methodology he rails against, rather the claim that science yields a product that is fundamentally different (purely objective) than any other field of inquiry. Ironically, the need to do so is, in his eyes, the same urge that drives fundamantalist religious figures to insist that they "know" the truth. And to the Frenchy, facts and figures and measurements are not the truth itself. They are merely data. JL
Science is different from other types of inquiry though because it is, in fact, independent of any individual biases of the reasearchers. Any scientific hypothesis can (in theory) be either conclusively confirmed or refuted by properly constructed experiments.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 22, 2006, 9:53 PM
Post #6 of 57
(1162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: In reply to: I believe what the Frenchy is saying is that the idea that science is "pure method' is itself a fiction, and that so long as it's governed by people, said people will be governed by the same biases, and will be prone to making the same "objective" claims about their work, as everone else. It's not so much the methodology he rails against, rather the claim that science yields a product that is fundamentally different (purely objective) than any other field of inquiry. Ironically, the need to do so is, in his eyes, the same urge that drives fundamantalist religious figures to insist that they "know" the truth. And to the Frenchy, facts and figures and measurements are not the truth itself. They are merely data. JL Science is different from other types of inquiry though because it is, in fact, independent of any individual biases of the reasearchers. Curt
Yo, Curt--
I'm not defending the Frenchman, but his basic thesis says that all scientific inquiry is colored, in the most global way, by both the field and the researchers.
Also, as touched on before, spiritual truths are almost always the fruit of someone spending the time and developing the technique to experience these things directly and personally. If you want to find that stuff out for yourself, you need only put the time in to develop the skillset. But noone can do the work for you, and that's why most of the world lives off beliefs--thety want something for nothing (no effort save merely thinking about it).
Now go get drunk . . . It's Thanksgiving.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Nov 22, 2006, 9:54 PM
Post #7 of 57
(1162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
But getting back to Story Telling. One can labor in the lab in obscurity and publish prolifically, but if you can't tell a good story, you'll never get others to try to repeat your experiments. If no one repeats your experiments, you had might as well make stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 22, 2006, 11:30 PM
Post #8 of 57
(1147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...Now go get drunk . . . It's Thanksgiving. JL
What--you think I need a special occasion? In any event that will have to wait. I'm taking my son down to a Suns game in a few minutes.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 23, 2006, 3:18 AM
Post #9 of 57
(1120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
I'm going to Mike Graham's crib tomorrow for Thanksgiving (my whole family is presently in Venezuela) and we've been talking all week about alchoholic beverages. This could be epic . . .
JL
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Nov 23, 2006, 4:01 AM
Post #10 of 57
(1113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
Lyotard or retard as we shall call him makes no sense.
The problem with understanding science nowadays as compared with 30 years ago is that science is HARD! It takes graduate school level knowledge to understand the information presented in lots of scientific research papers. If you don't understand the experiment they are performing or these "rules" that Retard mentions is essential to understanding the implications of the results.
The recent Nobel Prize is Medicine & Physiology given for RNAi I assume practically few people understand the consequences... because the experiments were bound by rules and should be told like a story? Or because science is freaking hard? IT IS HARD! Non-scientists are stupid. So shut-up and believe all of us scientists.
(This post was edited by organic on Nov 24, 2006, 9:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Nov 24, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #11 of 57
(1070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: In reply to: science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge; science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal; science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life. All of the above is imposed on science by non-scientists. Lyotard keeps making all sorts of unsubstantiated statements that one is expected to take at face value. Science is a method, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a philosophy.
It only becomes a philosophy (or is neatly jettisoned from philosophy) when you decide whether or not your model is reality, or just simulates reality. That is, are we just trying to recreate something that looks like what we just saw, or are we trying to recreate exactly what we just saw?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 25, 2006, 2:07 AM
Post #12 of 57
(1046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge; science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal; science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life. All of the above is imposed on science by non-scientists. Lyotard keeps making all sorts of unsubstantiated statements that one is expected to take at face value. Science is a method, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a philosophy. It only becomes a philosophy (or is neatly jettisoned from philosophy) when you decide whether or not your model is reality, or just simulates reality. That is, are we just trying to recreate something that looks like what we just saw, or are we trying to recreate exactly what we just saw?
Seems like you're favoring the "map IS the territory" kind of thing. Or possibly you're talking about manipulating the territory to respond in a predictable way.
I think you can, in many instances, "recreate" the effects on matter "that you just saw," but you can't recreate the territory itself--unless you're Merlin.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Nov 25, 2006, 3:19 AM
Post #13 of 57
(1034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I'll give you an oxymoron with the emphasis on moron, Political Science.
Those guys are the biggest story tellers there is. No way can potitical science ever be objective fact based truth. From what I have seen here in Queensland the political scientists seem to be a tool of the left.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Nov 25, 2006, 4:19 AM
Post #14 of 57
(1026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
vivalargo wrote: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge; science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal; science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life. All of the above is imposed on science by non-scientists. Lyotard keeps making all sorts of unsubstantiated statements that one is expected to take at face value. Science is a method, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a philosophy. It only becomes a philosophy (or is neatly jettisoned from philosophy) when you decide whether or not your model is reality, or just simulates reality. That is, are we just trying to recreate something that looks like what we just saw, or are we trying to recreate exactly what we just saw? Seems like you're favoring the "map IS the territory" kind of thing. Or possibly you're talking about manipulating the territory to respond in a predictable way. I think you can, in many instances, "recreate" the effects on matter "that you just saw," but you can't recreate the territory itself--unless you're Merlin. JL
No, I actually favor quite the opposite. However, there is a school of thought that strongly favors the notion that the model corresponds precisely to physical events, which is where science goes from method to philosophy. What that means is that there is the belief that if the lab outcome matches what is observed in the real world to sufficient accuracy, then real world conditions must therefore match lab conditions, again to sufficient accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 25, 2006, 5:48 AM
Post #15 of 57
(1021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Largo wrote: spiritual truths are almost always the fruit of someone spending the time and developing the technique to experience these things directly and personally.
Could you name a few of these "spritual truths".
Thanks, Bob
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 25, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #17 of 57
(997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
bobd1953 wrote: Largo wrote: spiritual truths are almost always the fruit of someone spending the time and developing the technique to experience these things directly and personally. Could you name a few of these "spritual truths". Thanks, Bob
My gut instinct towards this question is that it's not an honest question at all, but what's called a "set up," meaning you already have an answer in your head--or a strong opinion about any possible answer I could give. I never rule out the possibility that I am totally wrong about this, and about you, however.
This does get close to one spiritual truth (spiritual truth = truth, reality, "God," all interchangable terms). That is, when you're trying to wrestle down such truths simply with your evaluating mind, without bothering with the actual work, you will receive no new data, only something to evaluate according to criteria you have previously determined is "true." The spiritual truth here is that people are attached to the notion that the "work" is the shrewd application of their evaluating minds to (fill in the blank). And people are generally more interested in doing so, basically doing the same thing, than in finding out something new.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Nov 25, 2006, 5:49 PM
Post #18 of 57
(994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
vivalargo wrote: bobd1953 wrote: Largo wrote: spiritual truths are almost always the fruit of someone spending the time and developing the technique to experience these things directly and personally. Could you name a few of these "spritual truths". Thanks, Bob My gut instinct towards this question is that it's not an honest question at all, but what's called a "set up," meaning you already have an answer in your head--or a strong opinion about any possible answer I could give. I never rule out the possibility that I am totally wrong about this, and about you, however. This does get close to one spiritual truth (spiritual truth = truth, reality, "God," all interchangable terms). That is, when you're trying to wrestle down such truths simply with your evaluating mind, without bothering with the actual work, you will receive no new data, only something to evaluate according to criteria you have previously determined is "true." The spiritual truth here is that people are attached to the notion that the "work" is the shrewd application of their evaluating minds to (fill in the blank). And people are generally more interested in doing so, basically doing the same thing, than in finding out something new. JL
left to his own devices, man can decide that all spiritual truths are self evident. With no notion of a grander picture, it isnt too surprising that we once thought the world to be flat.
however often these truths can work out, i.e. leeching. This is more of a case in an accidental coexistance with the actual truth.
just a thought :) I'm REALLY going back to work now (I promise)
-Greg
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 25, 2006, 6:33 PM
Post #19 of 57
(988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
John...it was a simple question.
That's all.
One ( truth) would be fine.
Thanks, Bob
(This post was edited by bobd1953 on Nov 25, 2006, 6:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Nov 25, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #20 of 57
(982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
There's nothing simple about the question
...and, therein, lies the answer
To ask the question indicates that you're so far removed from the answer that even given examples you'd stlill miss the point.
(This post was edited by hangerlessbolt on Nov 25, 2006, 6:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Nov 25, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #21 of 57
(975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: There's nothing simple about the question ...and, therein, lies the answer To ask the question indicates that you're so far removed from the answer that even given examples you'd stlill miss the point.
Nice dodge.
Your answer was as shallow as the previous.
Maybe in your wisdom you could answer my question.
Examples don't equate to what is true.
So give me one.
(This post was edited by bobd1953 on Nov 25, 2006, 7:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Nov 25, 2006, 7:10 PM
Post #22 of 57
(969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
You’re asking me to “teach” calculus to an infant?
In a class without teachers...only students
He said, "Be still and know that I am God."
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Nov 25, 2006, 8:00 PM
Post #23 of 57
(958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
bobd1953 wrote: In reply to: There's nothing simple about the question ...and, therein, lies the answer To ask the question indicates that you're so far removed from the answer that even given examples you'd stlill miss the point. Nice dodge. Your answer was as shallow as the previous. Maybe in your wisdom you could answer my question. Examples don't equate to what is true. So give me one.
Hi, Bob--
This kind of reply underscores what I was saying before-that you seem to be currying "answers" that you can evaluate with your standard tool kit, then shoot down according to the criteria of those tools (evaluating mind). No harm in that. Yet this kind of discussion is really an endless go-around, leading absolutely nowhere--how could it? There's just a flury of posts where folks offload this or that and nobody learns anything new and perspectives get more fixed and never expand.
Perhaps a more useful question might be: If I wanted to empirically find out those "truths" for myself, how migh I go about it?
JL
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Nov 25, 2006, 8:16 PM
Post #24 of 57
(955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I find that the more you look at trying to understand and quantify something the more complex the field of view becomes. Variables, processes, interactions occur at (and between) all scales of time and space. There is no way in this world that anyone, scientists especially, will be able to fully break down the "working parts" of any discipline of science to understand it.
As Einstein said.... "The most comprehensible thing about the universe is that it is incomprehensible".
I see the main flaw with science (and I am a scientist) is that it tries to find the "mean"...the average and use this as a reference point. The more I try and disentangle complex processes and interactions the more I see that a systems inherant "variation" is far more important at understanding how the system operates at any scale.
(This post was edited by kachoong on Nov 25, 2006, 8:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Nov 25, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #25 of 57
(1574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
In science you have either something that is true or not true. Often times these things can't be indefinite -- I know that if i place my hand over a fire that i will burn my hand, because of the SCIENCE behind it. however other times science isnt far enough ahead. Science can only go as far as our ability to measure it. How much do i LOVE chocolate? 8? do i love it 10? how big is the universe?
without questions we dont have anything to ask
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
