Reply
Sat 15 Sep, 2007 01:30 am
American culture has lost respect for truth. We have been swamped with PR and spin and untruth to such an extent that we have lost confidence in truth and it has lost its value.
I think that many Americans display and embrace their symbols so extravagantly because we have devalued truth and have glorified infallibility. When we reach such a situation ideologies become more and more important and the adoration of symbols is our method of showing our evaluation of our ideology which is one of our gods.
I think that for many Americans the natural sciences have come to represent that which is infallible. Rather than a solution science/technology has become the problem because it is ill used, especially when applying the scientific method when dealing with human problems.
I think that the more attached we are to what we consider to be absolute truth the more we idolize such things as science/technology and symbols such as flags, nations, and religion. Would you agree?
oh god, yes.
although i think "truth" can be the problem and symbols can help. it's a question of going too far. i'm sure popper realizes this, but the point is worth making.
if you have no confidence in your beliefs at all, what's the point of having any? just do whatever. no problem. if you have too much confidence, you'll make a monster of yourself. at best, a jerk.
symbols are priceless because they're a language all their own, more to the point, they're a language that you can find weaving throughout history and across every boundary, while on the surface everything changes into something incompatible. symbols are key to a common dialogue.
but if you make the symbols in to idols, and forget they're part of a vast tapestry of understanding, well you've thrown out context and the free world along with it. popper just became my hero. haven't even read it yet, but it sounds beautiful. conceptual idolatry paints thought into corners, then people fight bloody wars to get back out of them. leave room for thinking, room for debate, room to be wrong- everyone will be happier.
Quote:We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
Cobert,
This is prescriptive claptrap. The real difficulty is "what constitutes a problem" and whether the
sociological forces involved could ever yield
to psychological modes of discourse. The crude analogy is to think that
biological processes can yield to explanations at the level of
physics.
fresco wrote:Quote:We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
Cobert,
This is prescriptive claptrap. The real difficulty is "what constitutes a problem" and whether the
sociological forces involved could ever yield
to psychological modes of discourse. The crude analogy is to think that
biological processes can yield to explanations at the level of
physics.
Your shield of negativity prevents you from learning.
tinygiraffe,
How is that article relevant ? I think you have may have my argument the wrong way round. Obviously, biological systems can trivially mimic aspects of electrical circuits, but NOT vice versa. The practical consequence is that "neuroscientists" examining the brain do not "know" whether they are looking at "logic gates" or "finite state machines" or "quantum interactions at the level of microtubules" (etc) as correlates of "behaviour".
coberst,
Have you any idea what I'm talking about ? And are you aware that prescriptive statements seriously detract from level of discourse to which you aspire ? You are hooked on this phrase "critical thinking" as though it were some panacea or holy grail for the salvation of mankind. Can't you see its just one world-view amongst others ? Religionists would argue that the world's problems would all be solved if we all followed "holy writ" !
fresco wrote-
Quote:Obviously, biological systems can trivially mimic aspects of electrical circuits, but NOT vice versa. The practical consequence is that "neuroscientists" examining the brain do not "know" whether they are looking at "logic gates" or "finite state machines" or "quantum interactions at the level of microtubules" (etc) as correlates of "behaviour".
I understood that they are only examining the state of their own brains.
my bad fresco, i was hoping you'd see the (admittedly very small) "j/k" in the title line, if you happened to not guess the url post was tongue in cheek...
i think the other ones were probably serious, however.
tinygiraffe
Point taken .
My reply was also aimed at coberst who tends to believe that "neuroscience" has the same "empirical" status as the natural sciences.
nah i'm very skeptical about that. well... very openminded about the subject in general i mean. we're just beginning to learn which things skinner was wrong about, right?
Right !
Skinner has to be viewed with respect to the logical positivist zeitgeist which attempted to avoid discussing "mental events" because they were not publically observable. Essentially it was a failed attempt to make psychology "scientific".
Our friend coberst has come to these areas "late in life". He seems to think that certain writers in "the social sciences" are authoritative sources of "new knowledge" for him, but he has not considered the central epistemological issue of the "nature of knowledge" itself. For example what consitutes "knowledge" for a retired "Westerner" secure in the essentials (and luxuries) of his lifestyle could be very different to that of an African living under a despotic regime and not knowing where the next meal is coming from. And suppose his "Critical Thinking" points to the "solution" that he (coberst) has to relinquish a good part of his twenty six fold per capita consumption of the earth's resources relative to that African.....is he going to do it ? :wink:
well, don't be too hard on him. from my perspective we're all still learning, he is even if (i meant "if") he's still clinging temporarily to a bit of a static or black and white view.
i admire his enthusiasm and i don't presume to know more about the subject than he does, i have the advantage of reading some brief report about what happened when one of skinner's experiments backfired a bit
i think skinner painted a rather bleak future of consciousness, and he was probably too proud of it- but i don't know tons about the man.
coberst wrote:fresco wrote:Quote:We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.
Cobert,
This is prescriptive claptrap. The real difficulty is "what constitutes a problem" and whether the
sociological forces involved could ever yield
to psychological modes of discourse. The crude analogy is to think that
biological processes can yield to explanations at the level of
physics.
Your shield of negativity prevents you from learning.
The dialogue of the pot and the kettle.
Joe,
Quote:The dialogue of the pot and the kettle.
Bravo, one of the most insightful comments I've ever seen on A2K.
Nice aim, you really shot down all the pretence, and no word over three syllables.
TheCorrectResponse
From your posts you seem to have the scientific edge over Joe (the lawyer) who loves his role as one of the old duffers in the box on the Muppet show. I therefore look forward to your views on the "reductionism" being discussed here.
Yes I do have a background in science so I am sure you would not appreciate my views on these topics. I think Joe said it best.
....what a shame there's no "chicken emoticon". :wink:
Yes, your obvoius intellectual superiority scares me to death. To bad there isn't a YAWN! emoticon. I am sure I would be just another one of those people who don't understand the quantum theory...at least not your understanding of it anyway. Like I said I think Joe's comment needs no support.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace