Philosophy

@fresco,

Quote:

Sokal reasoned that the nonsensical content of his article would be irrelevant to whether the editors would publish it. What would matter would be ideologic obsequiousness, fawning references to deconstructionist writers, and sufficient quantities of the appropriate jargon...

Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ... structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics."

Were you, by any "chance," ever an editor for the Journal "Social Text," eh, Fresco?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Surely you must have at least studied this article, and learned Sokal's techniques, eh?

Quote:

Sokal wrote that the concept of "an external world whose properties are independent of any individual human being" was "dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook".

After referring skeptically to the "so-called scientific method", the article declared that "it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct". It went on to state that because scientific research is "inherently theory-laden and self-referential", it "cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives[!!!] emanating from dissident or marginalized communities" and that therefore a "liberatory science" and an "emancipatory mathematics", spurning "the elite caste canon of 'high science'", needed to be established for a "postmodern science [that] provide[s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project".

It all sounds kinda familiar, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

I know all about Sokal and his exposure of the political overplaying of the post-modernists hand. The problem is that big chip on your shoulder about what you think science is about. That perceptual set manifests as an aggressive attitude which bars entry for you into the area called "second order cybernetics" (the observation of observation) which is fundamental to the understanding of epistemological progress. For example, you say you have read Kuhn, but you display no evidence of understanding it, or that it was a partial rejoinder to Popper.

I have no intention of regurgitating here the basic stuff on constructive observation and epistemology which seriously undermines naive realism. That would assume at least a passing knowledge of philosophical and psychological developments since Kant which you don't appear to have. You can find expansions of that in my many years of posting history, though those vested interests of yours, are unlikely to prompt you to bother.

So unless you have something positive to say with respect to the OP, rather than indulging in the adolescent activity of cutting and pasting what you think are attacks on my contributions, you will continue to be treated as little more than a nuisance and a philosophical amateur.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

So unless you have something positive to say with respect to the OP

Heh, that's rich that you want to talk about the OP, and his questions. As ALWAYS you try to hijack every thread you enter and turn it into a forum for promoting your religion. Right off the bat, you say:

Quote:

This position is an aspect of a view of "reality as a social construction".

So that is what I'm addressing. Sokal says:

Quote:

"it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct".

Looky there! He seems to be agreeing with you, eh? What a coincidence.

Just answer the damn question, eh? Which was:

Quote:

Surely you must have at least studied this article, and learned Sokal's techniques, eh?

Well, have you? Sounds like you have, but it's a little ambiguous:

Quote:

I know all about Sokal....

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

...you say you have read Kuhn, but you display no evidence of understanding it, or that it was a partial rejoinder to Popper...I have no intention of regurgitating here the basic stuff on constructive observation and epistemology

Why are you even bringing up philosophers of science and epistemology? Like you, Sokal isn't talking about those things at all. Like YOU, he is talking about REALITY (i.e., ontology).

Quote:

Sokal: In the second paragraph I declare without the slightest evidence or argument, that "physical 'reality' (note the scare quotes)... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." Not our theories of physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough. Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor.

0 Replies

@layman,

This is my last response to you on this thread.
I highlight below the differences in what I have said and what Sokal reports as the post modernist position.

Me.

Quote:

This position of (drawing attention to the context of word usage) is an aspect of a view of "reality as a social construction".

Sokal says in order to attack it:

Quote:

"it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct".

Sokal is posturing. The average constructivist thinker (not the PC warrior trying to change society) understands "physical reality" as paradigmatic(Kuhn) and that paradigms tend to be transient. He is perfectly aware that the concepts of "objectivity" and" external reality" are FUNCTIONAL elements WITHIN many scientific paradigms, insofar as those paradigms are aimed at contextual prediction and control of what we call "the world" at that time. (The PC warrior sees "control" as chauvinistic making him a juicy target for Sokal et al). Naive realists would interpret "fundamental" as equivalent "a static existential state", whereas constructivists stress the "essential dynamism of the epistemological process".

Now rather than trying to understand this overview, we both know that you are likely to simply accuse me of "word games". So marginally more significant to me, here, is the transcendent view of our exchange as one type of stereotypical transaction. And since as far as you are concerned the nature of the transaction is predictable, it tends to be boring.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You always talk about "naïve realism," and you always make it out to be an issue of "epistemology."

Realism aint that. Fun aside, Sokal is making a "realist" claim as a matter of ontology, NOT epistemology. To quote wiki (from among many possible):

Quote:

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that some aspect of our reality is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc....Realism can also be promoted in an unqualified sense, in which case it asserts the mind-independent existence of a visible world...

If you don't like that, you can go with solipsism (as you do). You made this clear in your first post in this thread:

Quote:

Ostensibly these terms refer to potentially independent (objective) ontological entities. But a transcendent position might be that all "things" are evoked by that form of communicative process termed "language"...

Sokal is clearly referring to an ONTOLOGICAL stance. You seem to think epistemology IS ontology. Hence you set up straw men when you try to change the topic, then argue against "it."

At the same time, you shift your OWN position to one of epistemology, after presenting it as an ontological question (all "things" are evoked..."reality as a social construction").

This old bait and switch tactic gets tiresome, and your attempt to reduce Sokal's (insincere) statements to epistemological statements is typical of you. It does not even address the question at hand, let alone answer it.

Sokal posed a question for your ilk: You want to jump out of his 21st story apartment to see if "reality is a social construction" and that "things" are NOT actually (as opposed to merely "ostensibly") "independent (objective) ontological entities?"

Well, do ya? Answer the question for once, rather than ducking it.

1 Reply

@layman,

For the purposes of answering the question let's just consider two "things" that only "ostensibly" refer to "objective ontological entities:"

1. YOU
2. The sidewalk 21 stories below.

In the "socially constructed reality" let's include this "social construct:" the "thing" we refer to as "the law of gravity."

So, what's you answer, solipsist boy? Wanna test that out?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco…first of all, thank you for the humor. You’ve made more trips toward this humor facet of forum activity recently than I’ve ever seen before…and it humanizes you in a way that was hard to discern during the nearly decade and a half we’ve batted heads.

Your humorous comments are pleasant; I enjoy them; and I do get a laugh from them.

Second (in a more serious vein)…the reason I don’t bother with your many citations is that I know enough about philosophy (under graduate major) to realize that your reference to “a”…will entail needing to understand “b”…which will entail needing to realize “c”…which in turn needs “d”…and I am not willing to go that never ending regressive route.

In any case, your synopses (which I accept as being adequate) of the thoughts of these referenced people...seem to me to resolve into something like “I cannot adequately describe it…therefore “it” does not exist.”

That is the essence of my (perhaps too often offered)…whatever the true nature of the REALITY of existence is…it IS…without regard to whether or not humans can understand it; comprehend it; or describe it.

Guesses about the true nature are fine…and qualifications like “the limits of language” are also. But to suppose that people can offer their guesses about what “is” or “is not” a part of the REALITY…as assertions of what "is"...is not only presumptuous, it is laughable. It is something, in my opinion, way beyond what someone as intelligent as you ought to suppose to be reasonable or logical.

Grok what I said about “I read your synopses of the thoughts of these referenced people to resolve into something like “I cannot adequately describe it…therefore “it” does not exist.””…

…and start a philosophical school which will be known by future generations of philosophers as postFrescoism.

Oh...postFrescoism will not pretend to know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thank you for that departure from your normal mode. I think one essential difference between us, is the experimental experience I have had at "the cutting edge" of perceptual research. I can assure you that concepts of "reality" (as in normal statements about what "is") have no relevance at all to the observation of interaction between observer and observed. Indeed the only measurement of "what is observed" may come from a subjects verbal response. An appreciation of the dynamics of that situation, and the controls involved in identifying the variables, leads towards selection of those (often complex) philosophical movements geared to hand it. Couple that with the failure of AI systems which are based on "lay realism" and you have forces which underpin my position.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Thank you for that departure from your normal mode.

Thank you for yours.

Quote:

I think one essential difference between us, is the experimental experience I have had at "the cutting edge" of perceptual research. I can assure you that concepts of "reality" (as in normal statements about what "is") have no relevance at all to the observation of interaction between observer and observed. Indeed the only measurement of "what is observed" may come from a subjects verbal response. An appreciation of the dynamics of that situation, and the controls involved in identifying the variables, leads towards selection of those (often complex) philosophical movements geared to hand it. Couple that with the failure of AI systems which are based on "lay realism" and you have forces which underpin my position.

Actually, Fresco, one of the differences between us...in fact, THE major difference between us...is that I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and you not only are unable to do so, you actually are compulsive about trying to give the impression that you have a more lucid view of it than others.

You don't, of course, but whatever it is that motivates you to try selling that particular oil, is a demanding taskmaster indeed.

But keep up with the humor. It will lead to bigger and better things and may even get you away from the tyrant.

And don't for one moment sell the notion of postFrescoism short...or treat it as anything other than something worthy of serious consideration and respect.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No you don't get it. I have just tried to explain to you why I (like others) consider the phrase "the true nature of reality" to be totally meaningless. There is NO "it" to have a view about other than as a word used in certain contexts

Please don't descend into mantra mode. You either understand my explanation or you don't. That's as far as it can go.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No you don't get it. I have just tried to explain to you why I (like others) consider the phrase "the true nature of reality" to be totally meaningless. There is NO "it" to have a view about other than as a word used in certain contexts

Please don't descend into mantra mode. You either understand my explanation or you don't. That's as far as it can go.

Stop supposing that your "explanation" is the end all on this, Fresco.

Stop it...because someone as intelligent as you looks like an idiot doing it.

You have convinced yourself that the problem is that humans use words and contexts to communicate...and because you cannot communicate REALITY...you are suggesting it doesn't exist.

I know you think this to be an intellectual deficiency in me...not being able to buy into the nonsense you've bought into...but you are wrong there.

There is a REALITY.

It is whatever actually IS.

The fact that humans can only communicate about it the way we can...is not going to change that.

Sorry that despite your intelligence...you are not able to see that. It obviously is beyond your ability to fathom that a "nobody" like me can dare to give you information that contradicts your interpretation of what all those authorities of yours wrote...

...but that's the breaks of the game.

Continue to suppose this has to do with my inability to understand your "explanation" if you must. The last thing I want is for you to be uncomfortable or unhappy.

http://www.philosophy.christopher-roberts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Einstein-Quote.png

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

There is NO "it" to have a view about other than as a word used in certain contexts

Quote:

Well, do ya? Answer the question for once, rather than ducking it

Clear it up, once and for all, Fresco. Are you claiming there is no independent reality, or simply that we can't know it? Is your position ontological, or merely epistemological?

Are you a solipsist, or not?

0 Replies

Fasten your seatbelts !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xvpxBVCo0c

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xvpxBVCo0c

A very nice "lecture" about research methods from a nurse there, but is there a point?

1 Reply

@layman,

I think a smart 6 year old would easily understand you cannot claim or disclaim anything without a bedrock to point to...Fresco fails at the most simple level of reasoning this...in sum he is a fake, and you are wasting your time with him.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

in sum he is a fake, and you are wasting your time with him.

He's a fake, sure, but if you're looking for laughs and entertainment, he's not a total waste, I figure.

0 Replies

I didn't realize I had such an extensive fan club !

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah99/davidrs1/stooges_zps7xbnqj52.jpg

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know