tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post110954524916907805..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Modernism Part 15: Modernism & Science are assaulted from all sides...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1110353023405870632005-03-08T23:23:00.000-08:002005-03-08T23:23:00.000-08:00"(This is why a "regulated" market is the only mar..."(This is why a "regulated" market is the only market that ever worked. In order to compete with each other fairly, we muct first be encouraged not to cheat.)"<br /><br />1)I'm not sure why you put regulated in quotes.<br /><br />2)What I find a bit (odd? troublesome? interesting?) is that without the "cheaters" we'd be missing a lot of innovations. How many industries fought new developments that benefitted them in the end? Movie feared and tried to block TV, then they made more money selling to TV. TV and movies feared cheap VCR tapes and piracy, then they realized that they could make most of their money through tapes. DVD's the "easy transfer" issue (they'lll never pay us again ! argument.) which led to renewed interest (DVD extras.) When sellers tried to dictate or control the market, the pirates and consumers used new technologies to do an end run around them untill the companies charged a reasonable price and made more money than error. <br /><br />They keep doing it, I remember the panic that came with the early mp3 players ("It's the end of music!") and the same fears of VCR's, DVD's and Tivo's ("They block/skip ads! We're doomed!) and I remember some products starting out as a non-licensed product (such as a shirt with the character) which led the creator of the character to say, "Hey, I didn't know that people would buy a product like that!"<br /><br />Short version, the relationship between honest consumers, producers (honest, corrupt, greedy, nice, etc.) distributors and "cheaters" is more than I can figure out at this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1110091234289655472005-03-05T22:40:00.000-08:002005-03-05T22:40:00.000-08:00Jon, thanks for your question.
Indeed, I believe ...Jon, thanks for your question.<br /><br />Indeed, I believe that individual human beings have an obligation to learn many techniques for improving their accurate extrapolation of the likely consequences of their actions. This effort CAN result in greater morality. But it is also aimed at pragmatic self-interest. It is startling how often these two things can be the same thing, providing society is set up in order to make it so.<br /><br />(This is why a "regulated" market is the only market that ever worked. In order to compete with each other fairly, we muct first be encouraged not to cheat.)<br /><br />There are many stages in this honest self-evaluation. Imagination lets you picture a wide range of possibilities. Culling lets you throw away the 99% that are obviously foolish. Analytical methods let modern people throw out another nine tenths, as in business plans etc.<br /><br />I could go on and on about that. But in the end, we have to recognize that the one greatest human talent in lying. (I am one of the best - I'll gladly brag. I am well-paid to spid tales about people who never were.) It is the one great and true magic.<br /><br />And as Feynmen said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.<br /><br />No, in the long run, we need an open society so that others can do us the FAVOR of criticism... a favor we always seem happy to return. ;-)<br /><br />dbDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1110021990032017562005-03-05T03:26:00.000-08:002005-03-05T03:26:00.000-08:00"Confucius ... But where it did not work was preci..."Confucius ... But where it did not work was precisely that he did not encourage empiricism."<br /><br />I thought that the Confucian system said that a ruler should show how well they would rule in one small province before being trusted with the entire nation.<br /><br />I should admit something here; thought I am not a Communist (because I hate authority/totalitarianism) or a magician (I hate superstition) there was something I found tempting about both of them: I always believed in something like the need to do better than my ancetstor, leave the world better than I found it (pretty much the modernist view David Brin describes) and I reasoned, "I was born into a capitalist system, therefore I must tear it down and replace it with something better; I was raised in a world of science, therefore I must find the flaws in it, and replace it with something better." <br /><br />Okay, it's simplistic, it's late, I'm tired. <br /><br />Lastly, I have to ask David Brin: how do you police yourself againt the problems of hubris ("I'm an adept of the first order...etc.") and the high of indignation (how DARE they!) I know that you believe that Cricitcism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error, but isn't that a little simplistic? What about self-testing, taking a second look, etc...?<br /><br />JonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109964692089305852005-03-04T11:31:00.000-08:002005-03-04T11:31:00.000-08:00Having read Foucault, Derrida, etc. I think it's u...Having read Foucault, Derrida, etc. I think it's unfair to even group them together. There's some big differences between them. The areas of interest are different, for one thing. Foucault strikes me as a social historian, Derrida seems concerned with language, and I've never been able to figure out what Baudrillard is going on about. <br />Unless you're just grouping them together on some basis of essential Frenchness, I'd recommend separating the original thinkers from the so-called "postmodernist movement".<br /> Most of what I see go down as "postmodernism" is just rehashings of vacuous Baudrillard junk and has very little to do with the core content of Foucault, Baudrillard, Althusser etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109955798304730142005-03-04T09:03:00.000-08:002005-03-04T09:03:00.000-08:00Dr. Brin quotes me:
---
"It is completely and fac...Dr. Brin quotes me:<br /><br />---<br /><I>"It is completely and factually incorrect to say that postmodernists yearn for "eternal verities", complain about "traditional values under threat", or claim that "the past knew better". Postmodern thought has always involved showing that "eternal verities" are historically contingent and has always been resistant to notions that claim to explain everything.</I> I can see where this person came up with this. (Although I doubt the quotation marks actually give exact citations of phrasings that I used.)<br />---<br /><br />I now present in full the exact paragraph from which my quotes are taken (emphasis Dr. Brin's):<br /><br />---<br />Dig down, and you will find that these authors, and a myriad others like them, tap the mythic current described by Joseph Campbell. A river of tradition, nostalgia and fear of the future that watered nearly all of the great literature in our tortured past, from Homer and Murusaki to Joyce. A despairing sense of loss. A belief in <I>eternal verities</I> and traditional values under threat. The rightful superiority of a wise or all-knowing class. A sense that the past knew better and that today's citizens cannot be trusted with bold new tools to "improve" the world. To improve their children and themselves.<br />---<br /><br />Dr. Brin's claims that postmodernists support the eternal verity of "scholasticism": "[d]efense of the declarative power of an incantory elite whose position has been usurped by tradesmen, mechanics, craftsmen and such, not hyper-elevated by science". I wonder what he would make of the fact that many postmodern critics of science actually hold degrees in the sciences themselves, i.e. they know what they're talking about and are not doing what they do out of spite or "sour grapes". For example, Donna Haraway, with a doctorate in biology, or Katherine Hayles, with an advanced degree in chemistry. (I especially recommend Haraway.)<br /><br />Postmodern critics of science do not reject the useful things it has wrought. They reject its use by elites as justification for exerting power over subordinates, those actions done in its name which are coercive and unethical, and certain attitudes about science that aid and abet the aforementioned.<br /><br />--ErichAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109952913376168032005-03-04T08:15:00.000-08:002005-03-04T08:15:00.000-08:00Dr. Brin said
"Buddha, incantations that withdraw...Dr. Brin said<br /><br />"Buddha, incantations that withdraw the mind from the world..."<br /><br />Sorry, but this is simply false. Buddha was an empiricist regarding experience and far from withdrawing the mind from the world, he gave instructions on how to use the mind to investigate the senses themselves. This is what meditation does - it allows us to investigate the content of our senses. The senses are also IN the world, so when you investigate experience, you are investigating an aspect of nature.NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109944348260721422005-03-04T05:52:00.000-08:002005-03-04T05:52:00.000-08:00Dr Brin,
Thank you for putting the finger on PM a...Dr Brin,<br /><br />Thank you for putting the finger on PM as a form of scholasticism. For categorizing Confucius along with Plato and others, I think you may be on to something.<br /><br />Confucius is interesting because he anchored Chinese civilization in scholasticism. He wasn't antimodern, and and he wasn't antiscience (There wasn't any science around for him to affirm or deny!) He did develop a school of thought that sought to employ the rites of religions to perpetuate a political system. In this he was wildly successful and his contributions cannot be denied. But where it did not work was precisely that he did not encourage empiricism. Thus, after maintaining thousands of years of relative peace within the borders of China, did it spectacularly fail under the guns of Western Civilization.<br /><br />The point is that scholasticism does have it's place. Don't underrate it as a pillar of civilization! So maybe the postmodernists do have a place - just not in discovering truth or dictating policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109942536512327562005-03-04T05:22:00.000-08:002005-03-04T05:22:00.000-08:00Gabe,
I wasn't clear enough. It's complicated yes...Gabe,<br /><br />I wasn't clear enough. It's complicated yes, but the point is that it is also logically absurd. For a solipsist, what is the answer to the question: How many people are there in the room? The solipsist will look and say three, but then remind himself, "But I am a solipsist, so they are illusory, hence there is only one." If THREE == ONE, then we are in big trouble.<br /><br />Of course, I am indulging in a bit of what Dr Brin calls "incantatory magic". Guilty as charged!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109916116553312972005-03-03T22:01:00.000-08:002005-03-03T22:01:00.000-08:00So much wonderful discussion among bright and erud...So much wonderful discussion among bright and erudite people! I am proud to be a stimulator of such minds. I certainly (!) respect those who came here to disagree.<br /><br />Having said that, I feel some clarifications are in order before I do the next section.<br /><br />1) about the matter of objective reality, please don't imagine that we are the first to face this quandary. In fact, the most common (and boring!) of all "wise" pronouncements... offered by Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Carlos Castaneda and ten thousand other sages has boiled down to -- "We cannot trust our fallible senses."<br /><br />Now at first sight that sounds like the key to science, and indeed, it is a good 1st step. But it hasn't worked out that way, because for 6,000 years they never took the vital second step! In fact, nearly all of these great sages - and countless others - followed this great insight with a calamitous follow-up.<br /><br />"We cannot trust our fallible senses.... therefore GIVE UP and seek truth elsewhere." <br /><br />They differ only in petty details of how and where else to look INSTEAD of the real objective world. <br /><br />Plato & Socrates say we should seek truth through incantations of so-called logic. Castaneda prefers incantations of mumbo-jumbo, cross-cultural mystery magic. Jesus says we should turn to incantations of faith. Buddha, incantations that withdraw the mind from the world... and so on.<br /><br />Can't you see the pattern? Every "wise man" NOTICES that the senses can't perceive objective reality very well (true enough). But then he prescribes a path of ritualized, liturgical salvation that involves running as fast as possible away from the Real World.<br /><br />I illustrate this in the following passage from <B>The Transparent Society,</B> in an imagined conversation between Plato - the greatest of all enemies of science - and Galileo, the first modern scientist, who finally offered another way.<br /><br />--------------- <br /><br /><B>Plato to Galileo -- </B> “Our senses are defective, therefore we cannot discover truth through experience. That chair, for instance. Despite all your gritty ‘experiments’ you will never determine what it is. Not perfectly. <br /> <br />“Empiricism is useless. Therefore give up! Seek the essence of truth through pure reason.”<br /><br /><br /><B>Galileo to Plato -- </B> “You’re right. My eyesight is poor. My touch is flawed. I will never know with utter perfection what this chair <B>is. </B>“Nevertheless, I can carve away untruths and wrong theories. I can demolish fancy ‘essences’ and epicycles, and disprove self-hypnotizing incantations.<br /><br />“With good experiments -- and the helpful criticism of my peers -- I can find out what the chair is <B>not.”</B>--------------<br /><br />Let us be very clear about this. Science is a process by which models are created and destroyed. But every time one is tested, compared to experiment and cast down, a new and better approximation model springs up in its place. I have compared this to the imagery of the Dance of Shiva, the destroyer god, who - by destroying the world - automatically makes a new world appear. (See? I can use romantic imagery in the service of science!)<br /><br />This is a very different thing from what postmodernists do. Their "relativism" is NOT scientific skepticism. It is something far older. It is denial of the useful validity of objective reality, in favor of a prescription for faith in the power of word-based incantations! Exactly the ancient pattern.<br /><br />And don't forget there most definitely have been many postmodernists who have stated, baldly, that objective reality does not "exist." Yes, today, this extreme stance has been forsaken by most (retreating from howls of derision). <br /><br />And yet, the basic stance remains the same. Objective reality may exist, but turning to it will only prove futile. Our models are illusory or unusable or defective because of human subjective fallibility. <br /><br />Oh, they are Platonists, through and through. Just like their supposed enemies, the neocons. The things that separate them, like a "left vs. right" political axis, are important in certain way. But not as much as starting to realize how much they have in common.<br /><br /><br />2) One of you made a good point:<br /><br /><I>"It is completely and factually incorrect to say that postmodernists yearn for "eternal verities", complain about "traditional values under threat", or claim that "the past knew better". Postmodern thought has always involved showing that "eternal verities" are historically contingent and has always been resistant to notions that claim to explain everything. "</I>I can see where this person came up with this. (Although I doubt the quotation marks actually give exact citations of phrasings that I used.) Certainly he seems to have found a way in which the PMs don't follow a classic romantic pattern. I pondered this a while...<br /><br />...then realized that it's simply untrue. Their eternal verity is scholasticism. Defense of the declarative power of an incantory elite whos eposition has been usurped by tradesmen, mechanics, craftsmen and such, not hyper-elevated by science. It is true that today's scholastic elite is profoundly <I>cynical!</I> Their alternative to science does not offer transcendence or salvation. No wonder, since these fellows are heirs of Sartre and Camus. <br /><br />But then, despair is one more way of saying "give up." It is religious in its own way. (Frankly though, I find the fizzy, Alcibiades-hubris-arrogance of the neocons far more attractive, since if they DO prove to be right, some good may come. If the cynics prove right, we're doomed.)<br /><br />Yes, the lefty PMs have a surface political agenda of 'liberation'... but always in theory.<br /><br /><br />Another contributor said:<br /><br /><I>"When greeting another culture, try not to judge it only as a failure to recreate your own."</I>Another great point and utterly delicious!<br /><br />Only one culture in all of history has promulgated "otherness" as a central virtue. (See my famous essay about otherness, found in my collection entitled... well... OTHERNESS.) The reasons for this new way of looking at the world are ironic. Only a people filled with confidence in their own safety and satiated desires could begin to look upon the alien as inherently attractive BECAUSE it is alien. Name for me another culture that promoted this weird idea to anywhere near the extent that modern Western Civ has... while portraying itself as the great criminal transgressor AGAINST this value.<br /><br />Now mind you, I approve deeply of otherness. I am a prime practitioner. I am a science fiction author and futurist. I like our expanding horizons of inclusion. I have benefitted from this expansion, immensely, and foresee a better world filled with empowered diversity.<br /><br />But science did this. Modernism did it, vastly more than the antimodernists ever dreamed of.<br /><br />Moreover, they never perceive the irony! When they shout and denounce and hold forth about the imperatives of hyper tolerance, they are beating the drum of THEIR cultural value system! No other culture believed such things! That eccentricity, diversity and difference-from-the-norm are paramount attractive traits? Can they really promote this without a scintilla of awareness how outrageously CHAUVINISTIC they are being?<br /><br />The contributor who said: <I>"When greeting another culture, try not to judge it only as a failure to recreate your own."</I> should not try to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. I practice this every day. <br /><br />And yet, I am not being intolerant of another culture when I criticize inconsistencies and things that I find bloody dangerous in a self-styled hyper-elite. Postmodernism is a dangerously nasty, reactionary movement, aimed at undermining the one cultural trend that ever offered hope to humanity for better days. A world made better with goodwill and our own skilled hands. Postmodernism deserves some of the "criticism" that it heaps (spews) in all directions to come back at it.<br /><br />Finally, someone said: <I>"As for the charge that postmodernism is "incantory magic" I have to wonder that means. I am worried that this charge is becoming a sort of incantation of it's own: if it's not science, it's crap!"</I>Remember who you are talking to. I may be trained as a scientist but I was born an artist. A musician, a poet, the child of many generations of known poets. I make a living at being a romantic! And I do it by performing incantory magic of the most powerful and effective form - the creation of people and worlds and then the spectacular conveyance of those worlds INTO THE MINDS OF OTHERS, through the use of words alone.<br /><br />It is the greatest and most powerful form of magic and I am an adept of the first order. So don't tell me I don't know incantory magic when I see it. Even science has plenty of this human creative art pouring through it daily... though in the long run, its most noble trait is that there always comes a noonday sun of experiment, under which the dream images and persuasive words melt away, leaving Truth.<br /><br />Truth... about which yet MORE sugarplum metaphors will then dance till the next noonday sun.<br /><br />That is wht I like about science. It doesn't banish art and romance and magic. But it does make them sit down and shut up and do their homework once a day, before going back outside to play. None of the other magical systems ever did that. Certianly the postmodernists don't.<br /><br />I tell you this. These magicians are very good. Like politicians and lawyers and other spell-weavers. They spin out words and create subjective images. We are human and that's what our brightest do.<br /><br />But I am grateful above all to a civilization that TESTS the spells. That process of Galileo's finally led to the Enlightenment that we live in today (just barely, still). It is the reason that 6,000 years of hellish domination by nobles and aristos and warriors and priests and magicians may give way to something far, far better.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109909823693421602005-03-03T20:17:00.000-08:002005-03-03T20:17:00.000-08:00This is absurd.Why? It sounds complex and perhaps...<I>This is absurd.</I>Why? It sounds complex and perhaps a bit non-intuitive but it doesn't sound impossible. Quantum mechanics (what I understand of it, I'm not a physicist) is also very complex and non-intuitive but I don't think it be a terribly good argument to say, "no, that's just too weird, it can't be."<br /><br /><I>Either this mind is God, or he does not exist.</I>Well more than one religion is based on principles like this. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109902684827857582005-03-03T18:18:00.000-08:002005-03-03T18:18:00.000-08:00Gabe, you said, "One can't really prove a solipsis...Gabe, you said, "One can't really prove a solipsist wrong, one can at best only understand their solipsism to be not terribly interesting or useful for the pragmatic process of going out and acting in the world."<br /><br />Let me give you an unconventional answer to why a solipsist must be wrong. Let us pretend that a solipsism is correct, that there is a single solipsist in the world, and the rest of us exist only in his imagination. What kind of mind would this solipsist have? Well, the solipsist's mind must be multiply schizoprenic, because in his world, he can find many people who disagree with him, and can go on extended arguments with himself against solipsism. His mind must be subtler than the subtlest mind, becuase even the subtlest mind must just be a part of his mind. This is absurd.<br /><br />Either this mind is God, or he does not exist.<br /><br />So, you can choose to believe in solipsism and God, or you can disbelieve and not be solipsist. Note that this DOES NOT prove that if you believe in God, you must believe solipism, rather, if you believe solipsism (even if you are not the solipsist), you must believe YOU (not just him) are God.<br /><br />As you said, no argument is wrong. But I stop here and leave you to draw your own conclusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109900150370071312005-03-03T17:35:00.000-08:002005-03-03T17:35:00.000-08:00For me, the second person (intersubjectivity) is m...<I>For me, the second person (intersubjectivity) is more important than the first person and is the basis for building up a consensual and relatively stable model of reality.</I>I responded to this, but indirectlyh only. The very notion that you are in facting sharing an experience with other people similar in nature to you is something you come to only after filtering your first-person, subjective experiences. One can't really prove a solipsist wrong, one can at best only understand their solipsism to be not terribly interesting or useful for the pragmatic process of going out and acting in the world.<br /><br />I think that matching your experience with other people is valuable. But this is something that we arrive at only after taking, on a sort of faith, many principles about the world. The ability to compare and share our experiences is predicated on an assumption that there is actually a commonality or consistenty between these experiences -- something that has pragmatic value but that I don't think can be "proven" in any final or absolute sort of way.<br /><br />To me, a treatment of these things as somehow <I>a priori</I> true is itself a sort of "eternal verity". I'd rather admit that the ground is shakier than that but then have the pragmatism not to get too mired down in this ultimately not very interesting conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109898644048851432005-03-03T17:10:00.000-08:002005-03-03T17:10:00.000-08:00Gabe said:
"I don't take it too seriously. That i...Gabe said:<br /><br />"I don't take it too seriously. That is, I take these faiths as elmentary and non-controversial and given that I don't think we can boot-strap ourselves to any greater confidence bout our place in the world, I don't dwell too long in epistemology."<br /><br />Yes, but we may have a fundamental disagreement here, since I deny this. For me, the second person (intersubjectivity) is more important than the first person and is the basis for building up a consensual and relatively stable model of reality. I didn't see you discuss this in your response.NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109888293080134882005-03-03T14:18:00.000-08:002005-03-03T14:18:00.000-08:00Jon said:
I must take issue with this. Just becaus...Jon said:<br /><I>I must take issue with this. Just because we cannot be truly objective since we can't step out of the universe and watch it does not mean that we should swing to the other extreme and claim that every statement regarding reality is based on subjective belief and faith.</I>Let me be clear that this is not a position I take because I particularly like it. I take it because I don't feel that anything stronger is really justified. Any stance that I have ever encountered on objective reality always relies on a large number of assumptions, or faiths. It <I>is</I> a faith of sorts that, in the end, allows me to believe that the sun will come up in the morning or that the next moments of my existence will have any relation to the prior ones. It's a faith of sorts that lets me believe that the other people around me are real beings, as myself, and that we really share a common experience. To try and build up any other rationale for this simply strikes me as an impossible boot-strapping exercise.<br /><br />As, however, I think that we already have the best epistemological basis possible for any situation (one <I>never</I> could receive evidence that would make them more certain of objective reality), I don't take it too seriously. That is, I take these faiths as elmentary and non-controversial and given that I don't think we can boot-strap ourselves to any greater confidence bout our place in the world, I don't dwell too long in epistemology. Even if we imagine a person who is truly hallucinating his entire experience, and is alone in his world, that person would try to determine which features of their hallucination were constant and would try to learn how best to get by in a hallucinatory world -- and that's what I'm doing. After a fashion I no longer care if I'm being deceived by malicious Gods or not, I just do the best with whatever reality I'm presented. I operate from this level not because I find it aesthetically pleasing to say that I operate from subjective assumptions, or because it fits my agenda to do so, but because I find that there really isn't a terribly good argument for anything more secure or "objective".<br /><br />Gabe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109879793750261932005-03-03T11:56:00.000-08:002005-03-03T11:56:00.000-08:00Hi,
I'm not Anders Sandberg.Hi,<br /><br />I'm not Anders Sandberg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109879591141104632005-03-03T11:53:00.000-08:002005-03-03T11:53:00.000-08:00"I don't understand your position that the "Enligh..."I don't understand your position that the "Enlightenment" was in the past, that we should get over it somehow. This is a not a viable stance." <br /><br />I'm used to thinking of the Enlightenment as a term for the beginning of the scientific revolution, Ben Franklin, Thoms Jefferson, Washington, etc.<br /><br />It seemed to me that this ongoing essay has taken on the forms (science is dethroned, those were the good all days, it's all been downhill for so long, the anti-moderinsts are left, right everywhere etc. etc.) of a "Romantic" anti-present rant as described elsewhere on this site. I keep looking for terms that describe today. Post-modern doesn't work, Nor post-post modernm, futurist, near future (isn't the present always that?) science fiction dreams that didn't come true etc. etc.<br /><br />By the way, I noticed your name as Anders. Any chance that you are Anders Sandberg? (I've checked the Mage-related posts on his website in the past, as much of his science stuff as I can understand (i.e. not a lot)<br /><br />It'll be interseting to see what conclusions David Brin draws in this essay and where it ends up. Kiln People was about copying parts of yourself, sending them out to learn and report back (and more) and I wonder if the author feels as though he is in the novel when reading these posts. (which means that I have to log off before my time expir-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109874025343121372005-03-03T10:20:00.000-08:002005-03-03T10:20:00.000-08:00A small copy-editing note: Atwood's recent book is...A small copy-editing note: Atwood's recent book is just <I>Oryx and Crake</I>, with no "the"s. --ErichAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109861792176469142005-03-03T06:56:00.000-08:002005-03-03T06:56:00.000-08:00Gabe said "When pushed I think that we must confes...Gabe said "When pushed I think that we must confess that pretty much all we believe is based on that which is subjective and that any statement about objective reality is fundamentally a statement of faith."<br /><br />I must take issue with this. Just because we cannot be truly objective since we can't step out of the universe and watch it does not mean that we should swing to the other extreme and claim that every statement regarding reality is based on subjective belief and faith. While it is easy to hallucinate when you are alone, it is much harder for pairs or bigger groups to have the same hallucination. Intersubjective checking of facts and ideas is the cornerstone of science and is too easily forgotten when we lurch from the modernist extreme of objectivity to the postmodernist extreme of subjectivity. Or in other words, the second person perspective especially when oriented towards evidence can ground both the third and first person perspectives.NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109859443746505852005-03-03T06:17:00.000-08:002005-03-03T06:17:00.000-08:00To Anonymous,
When I put quotes around "Science i...To Anonymous,<br /><br />When I put quotes around "Science is dethroned", I meant that I got that from a postmodern text (Sandra Harding, I believe). This was from a text in the 1990s. This phrasing was employed by a postmodernist,<br />revealing their agenda.<br /><br />I think most of us are forgetting that postmodernism is a form of radicalism towards nihilism. And like all forms of radicalism, what we should be asking is: what are these guys reacting to? The answer is: science and modernity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109839792750911302005-03-03T00:49:00.000-08:002005-03-03T00:49:00.000-08:00Erich said:
"I have to wonder how many commenters ...Erich said:<br /><I>"I have to wonder how many commenters here, including Dr. Brin, have actually read anything by any postmodernists, instead of only reading things about postmodernists."</I>Actually I must confess I really don't know that much. I have read a lot on cultural and moral relativism from the anthropological and philosophical. I am a big fan even though I think I fit in the modernist mold. Relativism seems an important component for dispelling the "eternal verities" that so many seem to cling to these days. <br /><br />I guess I'm sort of a pragmatic nihilist. When pushed I think that we must confess that pretty much all we believe is based on that which is subjective and that any statement about objective reality is fundamentally a statement of faith. However I think that is just a starting point, and often a boring one, as it is easy for us to agree on certain assumptions about the world, those assumptions which we implicitly assert whenever we decide not to walk into traffic, jump off tall buildings, or posit that the sun will come up on the next morning. And so I think we take those assumptions, knowing them to be at best only theories about the world, and go from there. Those who disagree are invited to go jump off of a tall building of their choosing. :P<br /><br />Gabe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109839252641424902005-03-03T00:40:00.000-08:002005-03-03T00:40:00.000-08:00Well said Erich and Jon. I find it interesting and...Well said Erich and Jon. I find it interesting and encouraging that I agree more than I disagree with most of the posters here.<br /><br />I am very interested in the phenomenom of culture shock. It has very practical relevance to me as my fiance is German and I have to deal with her feelings about my culture and my own about hers. Anyway, a while ago, I was walking through an art shop with my fiance and I happened upon a postcard that I thought had a very insightful quote on this. It said something like:<br /><br />"When greeting another culture, try not to judge it only as a failure to recreate your own."<br /><br />I fear that is what is being done here by judging postmodernism (and by association, relativism) only through its inability (or more likely lack of desire) to reinvent the scientific apparatus for theory building. But I think that is as it should be. Relativism relates to science as a meta-theory of sorts, something that lies outside the realm of the standard procedures of the scientific framework. As such, it is inappropriate to simply label it unscientific and dismiss it. That would be missing the point.<br /><br />As for the charge that postmodernism is "incantory magic" I have to wonder that means. I am worried that this charge is becoming a sort of incantation of it's own: if it's not science, it's crap!<br /><br />Science <I>is</I> principally a human enterprise fraught with the same human frailty of any other enterprise. For a scientist's treatment of this, Feynman's famous essy on <I>Cargo Cult Science</I> is an excellent read. It's a great essay but it really only scratches the surface. When judging the successes (and yes failures) of science it is appropriate that he who watches the watchers operates at a level above or below with framework suited for the purpose as they are critiquing this very framework. <br /><br />Science and relativism are both simply tools. Tools which can used well or poorly. My concern with Atwood and some of the other objectionable instances of postmodernism is not that they work outside of the scientific framework and not that they are romantics (far from it IMO) but just that they can be very inconsistent and that they treat caricatures of science instead of the same thing. <br /><br />In other words, it's not the framework or the methods of postmodernism that have problems but rather it is that these are often used quite poorly (just as science can be done poorly).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109832522584274152005-03-02T22:48:00.000-08:002005-03-02T22:48:00.000-08:00I of course should've said that the speed of light...I of course should've said that the speed of light was 300,000 kilometers per second in my previous comment. -ErichAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109829725486406982005-03-02T22:02:00.000-08:002005-03-02T22:02:00.000-08:00I have to wonder how many commenters here, includi...I have to wonder how many commenters here, including Dr. Brin, have actually read anything by any postmodernists, instead of only reading things about postmodernists.<br /><br />It is completely and factually incorrect to say that postmodernists yearn for "eternal verities", complain about "traditional values under threat", or claim that "the past knew better". Postmodern thought has always involved showing that "eternal verities" are historically contigent and has always been resistant to notions that claim to explain everything. <br /><br />There is a popular response to hearing about postmodern critiques of science which goes something like, "oh, they think everything is relative, so the fact that the speed of light is 3 million kilometers per second is just a matter of opinion to them". This involves fallaciously assuming that "science" just means the physical sciences like physics or astronomy. "Science" also involves sciences that examine human beings, like organismic biology, psychology, anthropology, and economics, sciences where there is a lot more interpretation going on. It is these human sciences that are the ones used to justify social policies, and those doing the justifying are greatly aided by a view that says "science (of any sort) provides direct unmediated access to The Truth".<br /><br />Yes, science has self-correction mechanisms. But people using science to justify social action don't have access to tomorrow's version - they have to use today's, and they have to say "well, I guess that was a tough break for you" to lobotomy patients or thalidomide babies when "the latest science" turns out to not have all the answers. And let's also mention the Tuskeegee syphillis experiment "participants" in someone's search for knowledge.<br /><br />(I'll note that postmodern thinkers don't expect that everyone will take anything they say as unvarnished gospel truth - they lay into each other all the time. Derrida first got everyone's attention critiquing an article by Foucault, and my copy of Lyotard's <I>The Postmodern Condition</I> has an introduction by Frederic Jameson that points out both what is good and what is flawed about the rest of the book.)<br /><br />"Science is dethroned? Who then sits upon that throne?" What a very monarchist metaphor for a discussion by believers in democracy! Why must any belief system necessarily "sit upon the throne" and be the court of final appeal for social decisions? Why not let there be a discussion, including non-science systems of thought that have proven pragmatically beneficial?<br /><br />One ultimate message of the postmodern critique of science is "don't shut your brain down and automatically fall into line just because someone presents a questionable line of action as 'justified by today's latest science'". <br /><br />-- Erich, B.S. Caltech, 1991 (look for my name in your copy of <I>Earth</I>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109812507839029402005-03-02T17:15:00.000-08:002005-03-02T17:15:00.000-08:00Dave,
I don't think it is the ONLY the subjective...Dave,<br /><br />I don't think it is the ONLY the subjectiveness of a concept that identifies a postmodernist. It's the stance. You have to distinguish between an idea, and a stance.<br /><br />One very interesting example I<br />would like to bring up is Bertrand Russell and his book "The ABC of Relativity". I read that years ago when I was trying to understand it. Now in his exposition, he was absolutely clear on the math, and he made only one confusion that a modern physics student would not make. However, when he leapt to the philosophical elucidations of relativity, he made one essential mistake, which I consider to be the precursor to the postmodernist's confusion of objectivity and subjectivity.<br /><br />The mistake he made was in saying that relativity has reduced many physical statements to convention. "What we once thought as firmly physical truths are have not been reduced to conventional truths like there are three feet to a yard." (Please pardon my error in quoting, I am recalling from memory.)<br /><br />This is wrong. It is true that in believing the physical theory of special relativity, you will have to regard many quantities as coordinate dependent. But there are still quantities that are preserved under the change of reference frame, and plenty of physics can be done there.<br />But a postmodernist will pick up on that statement and run with it as Russell did. Einstein himself never made that mistake. And Russell himself was never postmodern, (even though he does precede them by quite a bit.)<br /><br />That I think is one of the problem with postmodernists. The refusal to deal with a reality that is part subjective and part objective. It is not true that the subjective will subsume the objective (as they are wont to say.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109788023689744602005-03-02T10:27:00.000-08:002005-03-02T10:27:00.000-08:00I see myself as pragmatic, and strive to consider ...I see myself as pragmatic, and strive to consider ideas rationally. Until reading this essay series, I was pretty much oblivious to the names of these different schools of thought. <br /><br />Very interesting stuff. Being somewhat of an empiricist, I've been trying to match up my own experiences with the points in Dr. Brin's essay(s).<br /><br />When my opponent in a debate chooses to appeal to the "subjective-ness" of a concept, that seems post-modernist to me now. (am I wrong?)<br /><br />There have been some useful tidbits that would make a good "How to Identify a [Postmodernist | Romanticist ]" guide. <br />The issue I have with such a classification is that it could lead to stereotyping and dismissal of ideas a priori (which can, of course, be useful to persons with finite time). For example, "so-and-so used this phrase, which is a Postmodernist idea. Now I don't need to read the rest of his argument."<br /><br /><br />The Harvard/Summers hyper-PC business seems to be related to this essay... maybe the intoxicating effect of indignation and the liberal tendency for intolerance while preaching universal tolerance...<br /><br />-DaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com