🚀 go-pugleaf

"Haines Brown" <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote in message 
news:87zljh438m.fsf@teufel.hartford-hwp.com...
> Androcles, sorry to have offered more than was really necessary. The
> OP addressed what he called "postscientistm", and I asked him for a
> definition of it for three reasons: a) due to ignorance, the term was
> unfamiliar to me, b) it was not obvious how a list of quotations can
> provide a definition, c) I found it philosophically puzzling.
>
> Unfortunately, I ventured to help the OP out by offering a conventional
> definition of scientism as a counter for his "postscientism". I was not
> defending that term nor any position here, but merely trying to
> facilitate a response in terms of terminology and concepts that are
> conventional.
>
> In the course of my doing that, you raised questions about my
> presuppositions, and although that was off topic because I was not
> defending a position and merely asking a question, I ventured to reply.
>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> writes:
>
>> However, I was trying to ascertain your meaning for "natural" science
>> in relation to the conventional meanings of "natural" and "science",
>> and so I don't understand how your questions, however reasonable they
>> may be in themselves, are relevant.
>
> All I did was to report what I took to be the conventional distinction
> between natural and social science. I'm not defending that distinction
> nor do I agree with it, but I told you that already. I'm not obliged to
> parse an expression (such as what is natural or scientific about natural
> science) which I find problematic to begin with.
>
>> My question should have been and still is: Haines, what do you mean by
>> "the categories and axioms of natural science" and "knowledge"?
>> Indeed, what do you mean by "natural" science?
>
> Since I don't happen to think much of this natural/social science
> distinction, your question reduces simply to, what do I mean by
> categories, axioms and knowledge. If I don't embrace the expression
> "natural science", how can I define the relation of axioms to it, as
> opposed to the axioms of social science or science in general? Therefore
> I can only seek to define axioms and knowledge in general, and I thought
> I had done that to some extent:
>
>> > An axiom is a statement that is presumed to be true...
>
> I'm just using a conventional, although simplified, definition. If you
> have problems with the conventional definition, you have to say what
> they are.
>
>> > Conceptual categories are a product of both culture and the powers
>> > of the mind, and the former means they are not impervious to
>> > criticism, although because our communication depends on them...
>
> True, I'm explaining categories rather than define them because I
> assumed the meaning of the word was transparent: classes of the objects
> of knowledge or thought. Again, I'm not defending the notion conceptual
> categories, and if you have problems with it (as well you may), you have
> to say what they are so that I can figure out if I agree with you or
> not.
>
>> > I would simply mean by knowledge statements about the world that
>> > have truth value in that they correspond in some fashion with the
>> > world.
>
> It seems I've here defined the term as it is conventionally understood.
>
> Were I to explain what _I_ would mean by such a term as knowledge, it
> would indeed end being the book that you don't want. When I asked a
> question of the OP, it was quite proper that I employed conventional
> terms with conventional meanings. For me to have imposed my own terms or
> meanings in that context would only have discouraged a reply. That you
> and I may feel that these terms are problematic seems irrelevant in that
> context.
>
>>> Keep in mind the point of my comment. The author had offered a very
>>> long list of quotations that seemed on the whole to suggest that our
>>> categories and presumptions are all subject to criticism.
>>
>> I would agree with him.
>
> But that's not my point. A list of quotations does not define what
> "postscientism" means. The issue is not that our categories and
> presuppositions are subject to criticism, but whether there is something
> that might justifiably be called "postscientistic".
>
> I get the feeling that you agree with the OP and that you are being
> defensive.


Obviously we have a serious problem here.
 I say that I agree with Valev and that gives you a feeling that I agree
with Valev.
If I say I have four fingers and a thumb on one hand would that give you
a feeling I have four fingers and a thumb on one hand?
Do I have your permission to agree with your feelings about Valev without
being defensive?


> However, since the OP's position has not been defined, your
> defense is so far vacuous. I was not challenging his position so much as
> asking what it was. You should not belabor me for asking for a
> definition or clarification, and if you were to see this simple request
> as an attack, that would unfortunately say a lot.
>
> If on the other hand, your aim is to be critical, the target of your
> criticism must be explicitly stated or at least conventionally
> understood. I employed some conventional terms and meanings because that
> is a precondition of dialog, but that does not mean I defend their
> adequacy otherwise. It is unwise to use unconventional terms or concepts
> when asking a question because one removes ground for understanding the
> question and for a reply to be functional in relation to it.
>
>> The name "Einstein" is constantly paraded in films, TV quiz shows, pop
>> science magazines, newspapers etc., as though he were holy instead of
>> the greatest huckster since Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Saul of
>> Tarsus.
>
> While people have been somewhat critical of Einstein in certain
> respects, to characterize him as a "huckster" is very unconventional,
> perhaps offensive, and surely in need of justification.

Oh dear. You had a feeling I was being defensive and now you suggest
I'm offensive. Are you sure about your subjective feelings?
Let me tell you something. I am one of the most arrogant, offensive
contributors to usenet, if not *the* most arrogant and offensive. Perhaps
I am outdone by Schwartz. I call a spade a spade and I pull no punches,
nor am I sensitive to the feelings of others. I use invective when I 
consider
it appropriate, politeness when it is shown to me; but above all, logic
and truth.
 Einstein was a huckster.
 Unfortunately you are not at present qualified to understand the 
justification,
being ignorant of the drooling nonsense of Einstein yet subject to the 
popular
opinions of the uneducated. However, you can learn if you are willing.

>  I'm not inviting
> you to do that because it would be off topic and might involve subject
> matter for which I am ignorant and in no position to address.

Is there some reason for posting to 
sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,
sci.astro when you are ignorant of the subject matter?


>> What kind of "knowledge" can stem from the simplistic assertion
>> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
>> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
>> the "time" each way is the same?
>> I would assert that such categories and presumptions are subject to
>> criticism
>> and condemnation, they are not science. Rather, they are intellectual 
>> games
>> and immoral actions leading to malfeasance in the world.
>
> Wow, while I said I didn't wish to enter into an evaluation of Einstein,
> this bit really puzzles me. The term "C" is a constant, and so the speed
> of light from A to B and from B to A must surely be the same, regardless
> of their relative velocities.

I'm pleased to have puzzled you.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Since "v" is also a constant, can you justify your absurd presumption or are
you ignorant of mathematics also?
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif " --  
Albert Einstein.


> That was the whole point of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment and the Special Theory has been confirmed in
> Newtonian terms by all experimental data that I know of. Has it ever
> been disproved or seriously doubted?

Your ignorance of history matches your ignorance of special relativity.
Facts:
Einstein was born in 1879.
MMX was performed in 1887 to measure the speed of light in aether, when
Einstein was 8 years old. It failed, there is no aether.
Einstein wrote his claptrap in 1905.
Georges Sagnac performed his experiment in 1913.
The basis of the ring laser gyroscope (in use today for navigation puposes)
is Sagnac, not Einstein.
Sagnac disproves SR (so does mathematics).

I'd wager you know less about Sagnac and mathematics than you
do about Einstein and his crank theories, which is why I asked you
what you mean by "knowledge".

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is a student. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is a tool. Use him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is a sage. Follow him.


> You can't reject the dominant paradigm without offering evidence and
> justification for some alternative.

Yes I can. I can reject any nonsense I wish without offering any 
alternative.
"If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research, would it?" - 
Albert Einstein.
Oh wait... you wanted evidence.
Examine this photograph:
  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
As you can clearly see, the pencil is broken - evidently.
Do I need to explain refraction? No. I could, but I don't need to: the
pencil is unbroken.


> Without that, a rejection signifies
> nothing. And how the Special Theory leads to "malfeasance" boggles the
> imagination! What the devil are you talking about?

I'm pleased to have boggled your imagination. Hopefully I haven't boggled
your logic (if you have any). Possibly you are not aware of the billions 
wasted
on colliders and "experiments" which rely on Einstein's nonsense. That's the
malfeasance I'm referring to. You seem to be defensive.



>
>> Very well. I was only asking you what you meant by "natural" science
>> and "knowledge" as the terms do not seem to mean anything.
>
> But they surely _do_ mean something in conventional terms.

Then say what they mean.



> What you
> apparently intend is not that they are meaningless, but that you contest
> the meanings, which is something entirely different. But so far you
> don't do that and only put forward a skepticism that remains unwarranted
> because you don't offer any reasons for it.

I was only asking you what you meant by "natural" science
and "knowledge" as the terms do not seem to mean anything.


>>> For example, the term postmodern does not mean that the modern world
>>> has broken down, but that there's something we can define as being
>>> "modern", and the definition of postmodernism differs with that
>>> definition in some fundamental way. While postmodernists might insist
>>> that definition is part of the problem (and hence some refuse to call
>>> themselves postmodern), that can hardly be meaningful for those whose
>>> aim is morally responsible action in the world rather than
>>> intellectual games.
>>>
>> Are you suggesting Valev is immoral and/or engaging in intellectual
>> games?
>
> Who is Valev?

Valev is the gentleman you referred to as "the OP" and "Pentcho". His name
 is Pentcho Valev. Would you object to me referring to you as "Brown"
 or would you prefer ", KB1GRM" ?   You do seem to be terribly confused.



> Someone quoted by the OP? Even if he did quote him, and
> even if the quote was meant to support the OP's suggestion that we live
> in a postscientistic age, that does not necessarily mean Valev is
> postscientistic, whatever that's supposed to mean.
>
> In the paragraph above, I am using the term "postmodern" as merely an
> example of the logic of periodization and did not say it had anything to
> do with this so-called "postscientism". More specifically, if we assume
> there is a development through identifiable phases, each phase must be
> defined in a way that distinguishes it from the phases before and
> after. If we wish to use the term "postmodern", when we are obliged to
> define modern and to define postmodern in a way that reveals their
> demarcation. Has the OP or you done this for "postscientism?"
>
> The term "scientism" is ambivalent, and therefore one can't posit the
> existence of a "postscientism" or criticize scientism without specifying
> which meaning one has in mind. For example, some would equate scientism
> with positivism, and in terms of this definition, I'd fully agree that
> we live in a post-positivist era. But there are other meanings of
> scientism, and in terms of at least one of them, we clearly remain
> scientistic.
>
> Are you equating postscientism with postmodernism? This identity surely
> needs to be made explicit and probably defended as well. Everyone seems
> agreed that we are post-positivist, but a minority feel we are really
> postmodern. Clearly I'm not calling Valev postmodern nor criticizing him
> of immorality or of playing intellectual games.

Thanks for the verbal diarrhoea, but that last sentence answers my question.
Now... who were you accusing of immorality or of playing intellectual games
when you wrote
"While postmodernists might insist that definition is part of the problem
(and hence some refuse to call themselves postmodern), that can hardly
be meaningful for those whose aim is morally responsible action in the
world rather than  intellectual games."  ?




> That would emerge only
> from an extraordinary set of logical adventures.

I enjoy logical adventures.


>
> I should add that moral action refers to behavior that has been assigned
> value in terms of social norms. The absence of a moral dimension for an
> action (like brushing my teeth in the morning), does not at all imply
> that the action is "immoral", which is action contrary to social
> norms. Once again, we have to be alert to conventional meanings and make
> explicit when we deviate from them lest there result a gross
> misunderstanding as occurred here.

So definitions are important, yet you seem to shy away from them.


>
> My point about moral action is that any skeptical position that goes so
> far as to suggest that our knowledge has no relation to the world can
> hardly assign value to action in the world. Note that for once I here
> offer a proposition. If you think it relevant to the thread and deserving
> of criticism, go for it.

I was only asking you what you meant by "natural" science
and "knowledge" as the terms do not seem to mean anything.