The ontological assumptions of science.

I get your drift.

Ultimately the point must be decided in terms of "functionality" and that indeed cannot rest on authority. But this is not straight forward.

Take the claim that "in reality the earth orbits the sun". This is at odds with "everday experience" which functionally operates as though the sun circles the earth. So "reality" becomes observer specific in terms of their particular functional needs. In essence "reality" has arbitrary status. So questions about the "status of reality" are not merely aspects of the imprecisions of language, there are about the processes of experience (active perception) which may be driven by language. In sort we must include language as part of the process.

Your use of "corruption" is of interest in terms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (language determines thought). Whorf was an insurance official who became a linguist based on the observation that explosions had been occurring in "empty" gasoline drum dumps. Workers forbidden to smoke near "full" drums had thought they were safe near "empty" ones which "in reality" still contained flammable vapour. So from this perhaps what you mean by "corruption" is "dysfunctionality".

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When i refer to better founded, although it does not necessarily refer to your boy Maturana, it might be applied. What i am saying is that at such point as anyone objects to an argument or contention on the basis of that argument or contention being founded in language and culture, whoever makes such objection is him- or herself subject to the same objection. Therefore, epistemology is the point of my remark, and more specifically, i am attempting to get at at what point anyone would allege that one person's argument is unfounded due to epistemological flaws, but the same cannot be said of the person making the allegation.

Vide http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2783963#2783963

Setanta wrote:

So, for example, i might say red, to which you would object that this ("red") is only an artifact of language and culture. If i say that i mean by that light radiation in the range of 625 to 750 nanometers wavelength, do you still have an objection for which you will allege an epistemological basis? Is not any such objection itself subject to the same allegation of imprecision from linguistic and cultural corruption? At what point does this cease to be a valid objection?

Vide http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2784299#2784299

0 Replies

I knew joefromchicago wouldn't keep completely quiet on this subject. Smile

0 Replies

Ive been pulling lamb delivery duty all night and have been sleeping most of the day. Gimme the bumper sticker version of this thread.

0 Replies

Thanks, Joe, your linked posts refer precisely to my objections. Privileged position very nicely describes the "philisophico-moral high ground" which the proponents of such claims attempt to assume in such discussions.

0 Replies

Interesting to see your interpretation of my presentation of Maturana AND his critics as assuming the "philosophical high ground". But if that palliative helps to shore up someone's self-integrity, its perfectly understandable.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Interesting to see your interpretation of my presentation of Maturana AND his critics as assuming the "philosophical high ground". But if that palliative helps to shore up someone's self-integrity, its perfectly understandable.

No, it isn't a matter of self-integrity, nor of shoring up. It's a matter of being told that one has not properly perceived or described reality because of epistemological flaws in one's thinking or speaking, by someone who is subject to exactly that same criticism. As Joe describes it so well, someone taking a "privileged position" in the discussion.

0 Replies

I merely re-iterate the epistemological views of other writers who consider, as I do, Maturana's views to be "an advance" in keeping with the modern epistemological shifts in physics. I may indeed be "priviledged" to have had an academic background which enables me to understand these views but my style is no different to that found in the publications I quote. I therefore reject out-right any accusation of "superciliousness" on my part and see this as a distraction or a defense mechanism on the part of others not perhaps as priviledged (in my sense) who fail to understand some of the issues.

0 Replies

I have not accused you, nor anyone else of "superciliousness," i have merely pointed out that making epistemological objections to the ideas of others on bases which can be equally alleged against your own ideas constitutes taking a privileged position, and without reference to contemporary physics. The remarks of yours to which i objected were not comments on the sense of modern physics. This does not entail any defense mechanism, it arises from an attempt on my part to understand why one should accept that one's own views are epistemologically flawed on a basis alleged against one's views which my equally be alleged against the counter-argument.

0 Replies

The concept of "one's own views" is itself a focal issue for the system described here. In that sense they are not "flawed" but subject to deconstruction in terms of "functional adaptation". It is this meta-analysis which attracts the label "an advance".

0 Replies

farmerman

The bumper sticker :wink: version is:

SYNOPSIS

There is no "reality out there" consisting of things with "properties" independent of observers. Such a view is suggested by the illusory nature of words as "static pictures of things" rather than words as triggers for "dynamic re-experiencing".

These views are based on Maturana's concept of "life" as "cognition" or the discriminatory adaptations of autopoietic (self sustaining) organisms to enviromental changes. Language allows for mutual "structural coupling" between languaging organisms, and co-ordination of discriminatory actions within organisms from which the word of "self" arises.

Taken as a whole, these views are supportive of "non-duality", deflationist with respect to "intellectual cognition", and antithetical to scientists who see "control by understanding causality" as their goal. As such they suggest an eco-political and spiritual modus vivendi versus one of chauvinism or species dominance. Philosophically they are aligned with (but make no direct reference to) Kant's critique of "reason", Piaget's genetic epistemology, Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, and Foucault's views on social structure and gender.

(Respondents might note that I am an "eco-skeptic" myself and have little sympathy with the prescriptive use of Maturana in that respect.)

0 Replies

fresco,

The observer-observed issue is important in modern physics. Isn't most science done without any reflection on the oberver-observed issue, however?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The concept of "one's own views" is itself a focal issue for the system described here. In that sense they are not "flawed" but subject to deconstruction in terms of "functional adaptation". It is this meta-analysis which attracts the label "an advance".

And it is the basis of the "meta-analysis" i was asking about. I find the concept of a "meta-analysis" suspect, for the reasons i gave, and which Joe refers to as "privileged position." I wasn't attacking you, i was asking you if you could explain why such a "meta-analysis" is not subjected to the same objections based on functionality as would be claims about reality from "one's own view[point]." I would also note that it sounds rather hypocritical to refer to Einsteins observation about the "persistence" of "reality," but to dismiss people who continually, successfully employ a functional concept of reality as "naive realists." It sounds a good deal to me like self-serving remarks by philosophers, and without reference to the current sense of quantum physics.

Once again, i'm not accusing you of anything, i'm asking as much as i am stating. Note the use of the verb "to sound" in the last two sentences of the previous paragraph.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

farmerman

The bumper sticker :wink: version is:

SYNOPSIS

There is no "reality out there" consisting of things with "properties" independent of observers. Such a view is suggested by the illusory nature of words as "static pictures of things" rather than words as triggers for "dynamic re-experiencing".

These views are based on Maturana's concept of "life" as "cognition" or the discriminatory adaptations of autopoietic (self sustaining) organisms to enviromental changes. Language allows for mutual "structural coupling" between languaging organisms, and co-ordination of discriminatory actions within organisms from which the word of "self" arises.

Taken as a whole, these views are supportive of "non-duality", deflationist with respect to "intellectual cognition", and antithetical to scientists who see "control by understanding causality" as their goal. As such they suggest an eco-political and spiritual modus vivendi versus one of chauvinism or species dominance. Philosophically they are aligned with (but make no direct reference to) Kant's critique of "reason", Piaget's genetic epistemology, Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, and Foucault's views on social structure and gender.

(Respondents might note that I am an "eco-skeptic" myself and have little sympathy with the prescriptive use of Maturana in that respect.)

That's a rather long bumper sticker. How about this instead Smile

:

"Electrons go through slits and split, Humans hit trees and go splat."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

farmerman

The bumper sticker :wink: version is:

SYNOPSIS

There is no "reality out there" consisting of things with "properties" independent of observers. Such a view is suggested by the illusory nature of words as "static pictures of things" rather than words as triggers for "dynamic re-experiencing".

These views are based on Maturana's concept of "life" as "cognition" or the discriminatory adaptations of autopoietic (self sustaining) organisms to enviromental changes. Language allows for mutual "structural coupling" between languaging organisms, and co-ordination of discriminatory actions within organisms from which the word of "self" arises.

Taken as a whole, these views are supportive of "non-duality", deflationist with respect to "intellectual cognition", and antithetical to scientists who see "control by understanding causality" as their goal. As such they suggest an eco-political and spiritual modus vivendi versus one of chauvinism or species dominance. Philosophically they are aligned with (but make no direct reference to) Kant's critique of "reason", Piaget's genetic epistemology, Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, and Foucault's views on social structure and gender.

(Respondents might note that I am an "eco-skeptic" myself and have little sympathy with the prescriptive use of Maturana in that respect.)

The bumper sticker version of this bumper sticker version:

Maturana says that everything is just words. Except, of course, his own words.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Maturana says that everything is just words. Except, of course, his own words.

Ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Thanks, Joe, i enjoyed that.

0 Replies

Rosborne,

Nice one.

Setanta,

In essence all philosophy is an attempt to establish a meta-position but few philosophers try to achieve ot on the basis of a biological substrate. (Piaget being the other). Nor do they attempt to account for "science" and "language" as parts of that position as opposed to repositories of criticism of the position. In this sense Maturana (warts and all) needs to handled carefully in comparisin to other attempts at an overview. It is a truism that acceptance or rejection of a any position lies in the domain of spectator....Maturana points that out himself relative to his own position ....but the twist is that he utilises that truism to actually reinforce his analytical edifice provided the spectator has the mental stamina to delve into his copious expositions concerning, "organization" and "structural coupling".

So whereas I might concede the general point you make about meta-positions, I reserve judgement in this particular case until I am presented with particular eviidence that the spectator has made an effort to grasp the system. BTW This has also been the criticism I have levelled at others who appear to refuse to read what they does not fancy.

0 Replies

I am unlikely to read your boy Maturana. There is only so much time, and so many thousands of years of history which i have not yet adequately covered. That is why i have asked you these questions, because i do recognize that you speak with some authority on these subjects. However, the failure to read Maturana is not evidence that i am incapable of understanding an explanation of why "Maturana says that everything is just words. Except, of course, his own words." I was hoping to learn how Maturana's words are more reliable than anyone else's when it comes to epistemology.

0 Replies

wandeljw

You are correct about "most science" but there is a possible explanation for that.

Observer-observed problems conventionally arise in "experiments" when the two of them are of the same order of magnitude. Thus people observing people (social sciences) or the use of particles to observe particles (physics) is methodologically problematic because "observer" and "observed" interfer with each other.

0 Replies

That was an excellent short answer. I would add, though, that with reference to "sociological" experiments, the issues of language and culture loom so large as to make conclusions of such experiments usually meaningless.

0 Replies

The ontological assumptions of science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know