Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mfbukowski

The Pragmatic, Secular Atonement

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a very well done video, thanks for posting it.  I follow what he's saying, and it explained ideas like incommeasurability, which I hadn't grasped before.  Its interesting that he mentions in the video that Kuhns idea about incommesurability is controversial, and I would have to say that I lean towards agreeing with Kuhns critics based on my thinking that there are some measures of various degrees of objectivity that allow us to judge which paradigms are better than others.  

I'm still having a difficult time understanding how whether or not paradigms are incommeasurable supports your earlier statement about the process for finding useful paradigms for science and religion as being the same and based on human perceptions of reality.  First of all, the paradigms themselves are materially different and cover very different subject matters.  Its perplexing that you are comparing them, because of earlier comments you've made about religious experience being a subjective endeavor vs. science being objective and empirical.  I think those two points are in conflict and I'm not sure how you're reconciling them, despite your point about how you define group subjective experiences as reaching a sort of psuedo objectivity, your earlier comments show that you consider these two types of paradigms quite different in nature, and yet you are also arguing that they are similar, this seeming contradiction hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand how both points can be reconciled.  

This video and Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability also introduces a new conflict with what what I understood from your earlier posts in this thread.  Going back a few days you agreed with me that some paradigms are better than others and when I made that point you said this:

But now it seems Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability is in conflict with this earlier comment, so there must be more to Kuhn's ideas apparently, but how is the idea that some paradigms are better than others, not in conflict with the idea that there is no neutral way of determining which paradigm is better as the video described.  Can you explain this? 

You don't grow apples the same way you grow pineapples or your testimony 

It's like comparing the game of bridge to basketball, and complaining that bridge players don't dribble.

Well maybe they do but that's an entirely different linguistic context

What are considered universal moral laws are not what is considered a law of the universe.

The moral law that says it is immoral to eat your own children and the law that things left alone don't disappear into the sky are both laws but they are in commensurable.

They are different subjects that have nothing to do with each other.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a very well done video, thanks for posting it.  I follow what he's saying, and it explained ideas like incommeasurability, which I hadn't grasped before.  Its interesting that he mentions in the video that Kuhns idea about incommesurability is controversial, and I would have to say that I lean towards agreeing with Kuhns critics based on my thinking that there are some measures of various degrees of objectivity that allow us to judge which paradigms are better than others.  

I'm still having a difficult time understanding how whether or not paradigms are incommeasurable supports your earlier statement about the process for finding useful paradigms for science and religion as being the same and based on human perceptions of reality.  First of all, the paradigms themselves are materially different and cover very different subject matters.  Its perplexing that you are comparing them, because of earlier comments you've made about religious experience being a subjective endeavor vs. science being objective and empirical.  I think those two points are in conflict and I'm not sure how you're reconciling them, despite your point about how you define group subjective experiences as reaching a sort of psuedo objectivity, your earlier comments show that you consider these two types of paradigms quite different in nature, and yet you are also arguing that they are similar, this seeming contradiction hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand how both points can be reconciled.  

This video and Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability also introduces a new conflict with what what I understood from your earlier posts in this thread.  Going back a few days you agreed with me that some paradigms are better than others and when I made that point you said this:

But now it seems Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability is in conflict with this earlier comment, so there must be more to Kuhn's ideas apparently, but how is the idea that some paradigms are better than others, not in conflict with the idea that there is no neutral way of determining which paradigm is better as the video described.  Can you explain this? 

Within the context of each paradigm there is a "best"

But the best butter paradigm does not coincide with the best cancer cure paradigm, because there is nothing in common between what makes one butter better and what makes one cancer cure better.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Short answer : better for the intended purpose.

You don't measure how good butter is using calipers. You might however ask a hundred people if they subjectively like the taste.

In a sense picking a spouse can be an empirical exercise, if you want to look at it that way. You look at and talked to a lot of women and decide what you like. Would you call that an experimental technique? Not likely. Yet there is a similarity in what you are doing with science. It involves observation and decisions about what you regard as important in an individual you would marry.

At first one might think that everyone wants to marry someone good-looking.

Then after experimentation one might find that that is not of primary importance, one hones the Paradigm to fit other characteristics found to be important in a mate.

The process is to slowly find the best answer. That parallels science. But the source of the information is completely subjective based on your preferences.

So what is the best Paradigm to find peace in your life?

What set of beliefs make you see your place in the universe better?

What do you want from life? That question can be honed in almost a scientific method as you narrow down things to a certain small list in your quest to find what is important in life for you personally.

As with other paradigms you are finding out what answer works best to achieve your purpose, that is what paradigms are, of what is important in your life.

So the quest is in some degree experimental and some degree it is replicable in that you find peacefulness occurs from a certain activity. It is in some degree experimental as you experiment to find answers.

But the answers you find are to answer a subjective question about your personal needs in life.

So in some sense the process is almost like science and another aspects it is nothing like science.

But the answer you get by this dearly scientific process is in commensurable with the answer you would get if you were looking for a cure for cancer.

The process is similar but yet your criteria for what solves the variables is totally different. And science you want measurable criteria but in matters of the heart you want personally satisfying criteria that makes you happy.

I would suppose it's most clear in cases of sexual preference. Through experimentation one finds ones sexual preference, but does one want to call that an objective fact?

It might be objective that one is gay or straight but what causes that attraction is completely subjective.

It's what you like and what makes you happy. Why it makes you happy is probably unknowable and therefore somewhat irrelevant.

Your internal observation to let you know that you are gay or straight has nothing to do with scientific method and yet it is something you know quite clearly. 

Burned out on this for now. 

Thanks for the answers.  Its interesting as I'm learning more about how you see things, it seems like you are holding onto various different perspectives that are somewhat in conflict with each other, which I don't have a problem with, I feel like I do that as well.  But it does make it hard to reach a point of clarity when having a discussion like this, because you make statements that seem more certain and definitive in one post, and then when I point out that what you said doesn't make sense or conflicts with a prior statement you give an answer that shows you really hold a much more nuanced perspective than your original more certain sounding statement revealed.  

At any rate, I think the differences between science and personal subjective matters like finding a partner are much more different in very important ways, than they are similar.  I guess you could say that the process of experimentation is losely similar in that both processes are seeking for "what works best", but who decides what works best at the end of this experimentation?  For the individual and their partner seeking, there is no objective criteria that can be used to evaluate this.  So for subjective decisions like finding a partner I would personally say that these paradigms are incommesurable. 

Same with determining what religious paradigm works best for a person, or what exercise program, or political party, or hobby etc.  These kinds of subjects are clearly in that incommesurable space.  However, I think science is much much different and for important ways. 

I find this summary from wikipedia interesting in that it sounds like a more nuanced view than the video you posted earlier described.  And since I haven't read Kuhn and can't say which description of his ideas is more in line with his whole body of work, I have a hard time knowing which is more accurate.  The statement that says "competing paradigms are frequently incommesurable" sounds different than how the video characterized him as saying that they are always incommesurable and that only the critics of Kuhn's construct were the ones who might hold out a less absolute position when evaluating paradigms.  Whether frequently or always incommesurable is the question I would have and what Kuhn's position really is as that seems to make a big difference on the matter.   Also the degree of incommeasurability seems important as well.  At any rate, that seems to be the point that the critics of Kuhn's construct were making according to the video.  

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is it, if this makes no sense then I am lost this is a quote from the Wikipedia regarding Kuhn.

"Kuhn made several claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants."

I don't have the words to say that better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You don't grow apples the same way you grow pineapples or your testimony 

It's like comparing the game of bridge to basketball, and complaining that bridge players don't dribble.

Well maybe they do but that's an entirely different linguistic context

What are considered universal moral laws are not what is considered a law of the universe.

The moral law that says it is immoral to eat your own children and the law that things left alone don't disappear into the sky are both laws but they are in commensurable.

They are different subjects that have nothing to do with each other.

I agree that these things are very different.  Thats not my point of disagreement with you.  I don't agree that all paradigms are incommesurable or that we can't find any objective criteria to evaluate certain types of paradigms.  I don't know why you're comparing these very disparate types of paradigms in the first place, playing games and laws of physics are clearly extremely different topics.  

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Within the context of each paradigm there is a "best"

But the best butter paradigm does not coincide with the best cancer cure paradigm, because there is nothing in common between what makes one butter better and what makes one cancer cure better.

For your butter example.  Who is to say what butter tastes the best?  That is clearly a subjective measurement.  You can say one kind tastes best, and that is influenced by a number of different factors from your genes to your environment.  You may think one type of butter is best and can anyone dispute you?  If its best for you, then that is all that really matters.  

But an outside observer might recognize that there is something you're missing, perhaps that butter that you think is best, might also have properties that make you more at risk for some future disease.  Would getting this information be important for you, and would that change your opinion about which butter tastes the best if you had this knowledge?  I think it would.  

For this reason, even though we should respect the subjective preferences of individuals that prefer certain things, we shouldn't avoid trying to think more critically about how we approach our subjective views about the world.  There are times where critical thinking even about the seemingly subjective, can help people to understand that their seemingly subjective decision making sometimes intersects with more objective criteria. 

I think this is the case with respect to many subjective topics, including religion.  This is part of why I think we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that all paradigms are value neutral and incommesurable.  This is why I said I wouldn't agree with Kuhn's perspective as articulated in the video you posted.  

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For your butter example.  Who is to say what butter tastes the best?  That is clearly a subjective measurement.  You can say one kind tastes best, and that is influenced by a number of different factors from your genes to your environment.  You may think one type of butter is best and can anyone dispute you?  If its best for you, then that is all that really matters.  

But an outside observer might recognize that there is something you're missing, perhaps that butter that you think is best, might also have properties that make you more at risk for some future disease.  Would getting this information be important for you, and would that change your opinion about which butter tastes the best if you had this knowledge?  I think it would.  

For this reason, even though we should respect the subjective preferences of individuals that prefer certain things, we shouldn't avoid trying to think more critically about how we approach our subjective views about the world.  There are times where critical thinking even about the seemingly subjective, can help people to understand that their seemingly subjective decision making sometimes intersects with more objective criteria. 

I think this is the case with respect to many subjective topics, including religion.  This is part of why I think we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that all paradigms are value neutral and incommesurable.  This is why I said I wouldn't agree with Kuhn's perspective as articulated in the video you posted.  

Yes but if the better tasting butter causes cancer, obviously the subjective preferences would change for many but not others. People still smoke and now vape. 

You are right that I have been ambiguous in mixing metaphors, and that my final position is more nuanced.

I have abandoned the entire concept of "accuracy" from my vocabulary, except within a context.

Perhaps Kevin is right to bring up the Perry scheme.

That is the key I think.

http://perrynetwork.org/?page_id=2

There are no facts, only interpretations, and no "accuracy" about theories. Some interpretations work better to get what you want, then you try something new.

Commit to a position til it doesn't work anymore 

One person's view about Kuhn will vary from another and Kuhn was just a guy who wrote about another theory called Pragmatism, which was highly nuanced,  and his theory was no more "accurate" than theirs.

Forget about "accuracy", unless it conforms to an accepted standard, like feet or meters. What works best is not definable until you create a standard, and YOU create the standard.

Let's talk about Perry.  ? 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but if the better tasting butter causes cancer, obviously the subjective preferences would change for many but not others. People still smoke and now vape. 

You are right that I have been ambiguous in mixing metaphors, and that my final position is more nuanced.

I have abandoned the entire concept of "accuracy" from my vocabulary, except within a context.

Perhaps Kevin is right to bring up the Perry scheme.

That is the key I think.

http://perrynetwork.org/?page_id=2

There are no facts, only interpretations, and no "accuracy" about theories. Some interpretations work better to get what you want, then you try something new.

Commit to a position til it doesn't work anymore 

One person's view about Kuhn will vary from another and Kuhn was just a guy who wrote about another theory called Pragmatism, which was highly nuanced,  and his theory was no more "accurate" than theirs.

Forget about "accuracy", unless it conforms to an accepted standard, like feet or meters. What works best is not definable until you create a standard, and YOU create the standard.

Let's talk about Perry.  ? 

Thanks for acknowledging the confusion I was encountering.  I appreciate the dialogue.  Ultimately, I would agree that some interpretations work better than others, that is why I see it as so important that we learn to critically think, and we uphold a value of humility rather than certainty about our interpretations and the paradigms that we prefer.  I also think it is very difficult for us to accurately assess how well something is working for ourselves, let alone others, so I'm sympathetic to people holding beliefs that may seem flawed from a different perspective.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for acknowledging the confusion I was encountering.  I appreciate the dialogue.  Ultimately, I would agree that some interpretations work better than others, that is why I see it as so important that we learn to critically think, and we uphold a value of humility rather than certainty about our interpretations and the paradigms that we prefer.  I also think it is very difficult for us to accurately assess how well something is working for ourselves, let alone others, so I'm sympathetic to people holding beliefs that may seem flawed from a different perspective.  

And so now also many philosophers  with Pragmatists leanings and that includes great ones,  define "certainty" as a psychological state.   Just as you can be happy, sad, hungry or tired, you can be "certain" about how a paradigm works and then something happens to make you see it doesn't work.

For me that has happened with all the notions of "accuracy" and "certainty" and uses of the word "know" which I also regard as similar to "certain" as being a psychological state.  It's not like I am making up this attitude- I think you have shown me that the Rorty quote approach does not work in communicating with people who are not used to thinking this way.  And you are not the only one- I have done this over and again with many here, but non so persistent as you, and I am grateful for the give and take.

I think I will stick to the church standard in describing the problem of "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" designated with "scripture" being revelation including personal revelation- which is immediate and non-speakable.

The minute you put the ineffable intelligence God places into your mind, into words it immediately becomes "a philosophy of men" to be judged in linguistic terms.

So I wil concentrate more on the separation between revelation and words.   At some point it becomes a matter of simply understanding that or not- there is the ineffable and then there is the lingusitic. 

It is like different colors which are indescribable.  If you have never seen green as distinguished from blue, we regard that as being "colorblind", one could argue all day that there is no difference between green and blue and get nowhere.

So perhaps the best way is leave it with that some people see it and others don't.    As always it is a matter of perception and interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty

And this is a great summary of Dewey's position, and I think it fits well with the Perry Scheme

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm

Quote

Such considerations point to the conclusion that the ultimate ground of the quest for cognitive certainty is the need for security in the results of action. Men readily persuade themselves that they are devoted to intellectual certainty for its own sake. Actually they want it because of its bearing on safeguarding what they desire and esteem. The need for protection and prosperity in action created the need for warranting the validity of intellectual beliefs.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for acknowledging the confusion I was encountering.  I appreciate the dialogue.  Ultimately, I would agree that some interpretations work better than others, that is why I see it as so important that we learn to critically think, and we uphold a value of humility rather than certainty about our interpretations and the paradigms that we prefer.  I also think it is very difficult for us to accurately assess how well something is working for ourselves, let alone others, so I'm sympathetic to people holding beliefs that may seem flawed from a different perspective.  

Here is an excerpt from Dewey's "On Certainty" which I find highly relevant to this whole thing.  I recommend reading the whole chapter.   It's not long but it is philosophy so the vocabulary may be daunting, not sure.  Some technical words.   Again from the same source, as above.  I have underlined some relevant passages.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm

Quote

 

IN THE PREVIOUS chapter, we noted incidentally the distinction made in the classic tradition between knowledge and belief, or, as Locke put it, between knowledge and judgment. According to this distinction the certain and knowledge are co-extensive. Disputes exist, but they are whether sensation or reason affords the basis of certainty; or whether existence or essence is its object. In contrast with this identification, the very word "belief" is eloquent on the topic of certainty. We believe in the absence of knowledge or complete assurance. Hence the quest for certainty has always been an effort to transcend belief. Now since, as we have already noted, all matters of practical action involve an element of uncertainty, we can ascend from belief to knowledge only by isolating the latter from practical doing and making.

In this chapter we are especially concerned with the effect of the ideal of certainty as something superior to belief upon the conception of the nature and function of philosophy. Greek thinkers saw dearly-and logically-that experience cannot furnish us, as respects cognition of existence, with anything more than contingent probability. Experience cannot deliver to us necessary truths; truths completely demonstrated by reason. Its conclusions are particular, not universal. Not being "exact" they come short of "science." Thus there arose the distinction between rational truths or, in modern terminology, truths relating to the relation of ideas, and "truths" about matters of existence, empirically ascertained. Thus not merely the arts of practice, industrial and social, were stamped matters of belief rather than of knowledge, but also all those sciences which are matters of inductive inference from observation.

One might indulge in the reflection that they are none the worse for all that, especially since the natural sciences have developed a technique for achieving a high degree of probability and for measuring, within assignable limits, the amount of probability which attaches in particular cases to conclusions. But historically the matter is not so simple as to permit of this retort. For empirical or observational sciences were placed in invidious contrast to rational sciences which dealt with eternal and universal objects and which therefore were possessed of necessary truth. Consequently all observational sciences as far as their material could not be subsumed under forms and principles supplied by rational science shared in the depreciatory view held about practical affairs. They are relatively low, secular and profane compared with the perfect realities of rational science.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

In another thread, as a derail @Exiled made a comment that I refused to answer on that thread, so here it is, very briefly since this has already been covered in this thread which I suggest he read, but you know how that goes

His comment:

Quote

I don't think you read me correctly. I think the appeal to the subjective is just a way to defend against the indefensible that you find convenient.  Also, there is the condemnation of unbelievers, however politely it is done by others, that also sparks interest in exposing the apologetic you use.  There is no insecurity in not believing something where the proof offered is entirely subjective.

Well "reading another correctly" is  a problem in itself as we have discussed, but ok we will take that on again if necessary,

I have no problem with sparking interest in my apolgetic- that's why I do apologetics 

Regarding "proof"- that is an undefinable concept, like "truth"

Regarding it as being "subjective" I will stick with this previously quoted statement.

Perhaps picking up this post at this point will be the quickest way of getting into it.  See pages 7 and this page 8

Note especially the last post on page 7.

Quote

Kuhn made several claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants."

And those conditioned responses include your views.  :)

(As mine do as well- no argument there)   There are no facts just interpretations.  

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2019 at 4:01 PM, hope_for_things said:

I'm still having a difficult time understanding how whether or not paradigms are incommeasurable supports your earlier statement about the process for finding useful paradigms for science and religion as being the same and based on human perceptions of reality.  First of all, the paradigms themselves are materially different and cover very different subject matters.  Its perplexing that you are comparing them, because of earlier comments you've made about religious experience being a subjective endeavor vs. science being objective and empirical.  I think those two points are in conflict and I'm not sure how you're reconciling them, despite your point about how you define group subjective experiences as reaching a sort of psuedo objectivity, your earlier comments show that you consider these two types of paradigms quite different in nature, and yet you are also arguing that they are similar, this seeming contradiction hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand how both points can be reconciled.  

This video and Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability also introduces a new conflict with what what I understood from your earlier posts in this thread.  Going back a few days you agreed with me that some paradigms are better than others and when I made that point you said this:

But now it seems Kuhn's idea of incommeasurability is in conflict with this earlier comment, so there must be more to Kuhn's ideas apparently, but how is the idea that some paradigms are better than others, not in conflict with the idea that there is no neutral way of determining which paradigm is better as the video described.  Can you explain this? 

I want to tackle this again, because it also relates to Exiled's point above

We must think in terms of intersubjectivity which I have had reasons for not using for a long time- but I think in this context it communicates a lot when people do not understand my views.  The article is pretty comprehensive and discusses its use in various fields of inquiry, and it seemed to ring a bell with you as well.  For me the "subjective" is my personal direct feelings and perceptions including the relations I place on them- what might scare me for example, what I might regard as "revelation"- sudden feelings of surprise, fear doubt etc.  When I communicate those or think of them "after the fact" they automatically become "INTER-subjective" because I have now loosed those private perceptions/feelings into the world to be discussed with others.  Perhaps that is the root of the problem. @clarkgoblehas also noted my use of the word "experience" and questioned what I mean by it- I will stick with William James expression which regards AN "experience" not as a "raw feel" but as an after thought and story of what happened. 

An LA "experience"- 

"I had a terrible drive home, and I stopped at a 7-11 to get something to drink and there was this guy out front waving his arms and then I ...."

That is AN experience.  The "experience itself" was how the drive was "hard"- the frustration with the traffic, mutual honking of horns following angered responses, finally the quest for relief of a drink satisfied- "aha, peace!- something to drink"- only to be confronted by a looney- waving arms and yelling at the entrance- feelings of perhaps fear, questioning the right course to take etc"

So the "experience itself" is not describable- and yet it is profoundly "REAL" it is reality itself without verbalization, responses and reactions to stimuli within the mind/brain of the subject finally boiled down to a story- of the "terrible drive home and attendant events.

"Experience itself" is therefore pre-linguistic- it is the conscious flow of events, responses, reactions, feelings without much thinking about them. 

To me this "religious experience" is in this category.   It is a reaction/response to stimuli somehow, perhaps prayer, perhaps music, or just a thought or association, and so is not at all unlike the driving home and finding a drink experience itself.  One is not seeking evidence for the honking horn next to you or the crazy guy waving his hands- it is right there before you, confronting your reality and demanding response/reaction,  It demands action - as incidentally does faith as a "principle of action" even if the action is sitting down and thinking about it.  

Something has intruded into the status "la-dee da"  experience and demands a solution.

And so then drawing on all our universal prejudices, and "who we are" we react or respond (there is a difference not discussed here)- we plug in the "cognitive bias" we have whatever it is - to solve the problem the way we have been conditioned to solve problems- and which changes according to psychological principles I believe found in the Perry Scheme http://perrynetwork.org/?page_id=2

And then we put our solution into words "I hate LA - the traffic is ridiculous and the loonies are making it unlivable, housing is ridiculously expensive " and you post it on the internet.

Others now respond with comments about the homeless problem, economics, psycho-social subjects, politics etc and put in THEIR subjective replies drawn from their own cognitive bias.

The topic has now become "intersubjective".  But what is the truth?  Where is it?  It depends on the our contexts and tribes and our truth communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

Quote

Intersubjectivity argues that each thought community shares social experiences that are different from the social experiences of other thought communities, creating differing beliefs among people who subscribe to different thought communities. These experiences transcend our subjectivity, which explains why they can be shared by the entire thought community.[6] Proponents of intersubjectivity support the view that individual beliefs are often the result of thought community beliefs, not just personal experiences or universal and objective human beliefs. Beliefs are recast in terms of standards, which are set by thought communities.

So Yes politics and the paradigms we assume are incommeasurable with physics and string theory.  Yet both paradigms have things in common. They both tap into their specific communities to decide matters important to the communities and which the community defines as objective obvious facts- the stupid other people cannot see!

The community of Los Angeles commuters have a paradigm in common- get to where they want to be, and get out of this *%&!!??^ car as soon as possible and get on with life. The only practical solution or difference in "truth" they are thinkng about is what GPS app to use which "works best". That is the only kind of "objective truth" that is paramount at the moment.  They don't care if it is true that their cars are made of atoms, quarks strings or whatever, just as long as the dang thing WORKS.  But that is the common truth of the community unfied as one for a period of time while at the same time they ARE physicists and truck drivers, clerics, every imaginable nationality, every political opinion from communism to white supremacy, every possible religion, every possible paradigm holder in humanity- probably 9 million people at rush hour (18 million divided by 2 on the assumption half the population drives?) all needing one objective truth- the best way to get to their destination.  And will that even be "objectively true" and determine what is "really" the best route?  What if they need to stop off for gas, milk or bread?

The fact that their paradigms are "materially different and cover different paradigms" is irrelevant to them all wanting the same objective information of the "best" way (not morally, not by flying, not in a theoretical tunnel, not being transported by angels, no Scotties to beam them there, etc- perhaps those as privately held paradigms as well) to get the heck out of the traffic and get to their destinations.

So what paradigms they use they pull out of their mental box of paradigms, and pick the one that works the best- in their already cognitively biased opinion- to solve the problem at hand

THAT hopefully answers this:

Quote

 

First of all, the paradigms themselves are materially different and cover very different subject matters.  Its perplexing that you are comparing them, because of earlier comments you've made about religious experience being a subjective endeavor vs. science being objective and empirical.  I think those two points are in conflict and I'm not sure how you're reconciling them, despite your point about how you define group subjective experiences as reaching a sort of psuedo objectivity, your earlier comments show that you consider these two types of paradigms quite different in nature, and yet you are also arguing that they are similar, this seeming contradiction hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand how both points can be reconciled.  

 

My statements are reconciled through the explanation that we all hold many different paradigms at once, some conflicting with others- which we subjectively pick out of our "box of paradigms" to solve a given problem

So if I have cancer I am going to want the BEST scientific paradigm- decided subjectively by my other paradigms- AND the best spiritual paradigm- decided subjectively- and the BEST psychological paradigm- decided subjectively from what I know of therapists- the BEST treatment center decided subjectively also by questions like "do I want to fly 3000 miles to get something slightly "better"- etc.

So there is "pseudo" objectivity about the best way home, pseudo objectivity about the best cancer treatment, about quarks and strings and even what makes a nutritious meal- eggs or not?

And we haven't even gotten to morals and religion yet!

So yes there are clearly similarities between finding the "best" scientific paradigms, the best paradigms to getting though traffic, and what meaning I want to get from religion or other paradigms I am convinced are "better" than what I define as "religion" that give me purpose in life.  

(Is saving the whales- which is "suppose" what gives me purpose in life?   Is that a religion or scientific paradigm?)

Is getting up in the morning to do science which gives me purpose in life a "science" or "religion"  Is it the pursuit of what I cannot define as "truth" easier for scientists who have never thought about what "truth" is "better" than what others who have never thought about what truth is either?

Is this still perplexing?

Quote

"Its perplexing that you are comparing them, because of earlier comments you've made about religious experience being a subjective endeavor vs. science being objective and empirical.  I think those two points are in conflict and I'm not sure how you're reconciling them, despite your point about how you define group subjective experiences as reaching a sort of psuedo objectivity, your earlier comments show that you consider these two types of paradigms quite different in nature, and yet you are also arguing that they are similar, this seeming contradiction hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand how both points can be reconciled. "

Each community defines what is "objective" for their community which is created inter subjectively  by people who agree with each other.  So even in the traffic debate opponents between google and waze- note the wording of this ad for waze:  https://www.waze.com/

Quote

Millions of people make up the Waze community. See how they reduce traffic, keep each other safe, and make roads better–together.

Objective or subjective?

So the paradigms are different AND "psuedo-objective" but objective within intersubjective communities but similar in that they are "paradigms" which people find or do not find, to be useful in achieving their goals.

I remember in my days as a financial planner- the first questions you ask are about goals and objectives- and THEN tailor a plan to help them get there.   I would think the plan was "objectively true" but usually others had other opinions that had to be reconciled from their "objective truth"

Same difference.  Usually intersubjective consensus was achieved.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/31/2019 at 2:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

 @clarkgoblehas also noted my use of the word "experience" and questioned what I mean by it- I will stick with William James expression which regards AN "experience" not as a "raw feel" but as an after thought and story of what happened. 

I don't have time to really join in the discussion (nor much to say). I do agree that "experience" is one of those vague terms which we all think we understand but which in technical arguments can hide a lot of disagreements.

My own use is more following Peirce's. "The historic happenings which affect men’s beliefs [are] called experience. [...] As for this experience under the influence of which beliefs are formed what is that? It is nothing but the forceful element in the course of life. Whatever it is that in our history wears out our attempts to resist it, that is experience. Its sanction is the best possible: victory. The maxim that we ought to be “guided” by experience means that we had better submit at once to that to which we must submit at last." ("Grand Logic 1893", MS [R] 408:146-7)

"For an experience is the irresistible influence from without which an incident exerts upon the mind. An experience may be either cognitive or emotional; but by experience philosophers mean the aggregate of cognitive experiences. Life presents a course of experience…" ("On the Logic of Quantity and especially of Infinity" MS [R] 16:7; PM 48)

"I use the word 'experience' in a much broader sense than it carries in the special sciences. For those sciences, experience is that which their special means of observation directly bring to light, and it is contrasted with the interpretations of those observations which are effected by connecting these experiences with what we otherwise know. But for philosophy, which is the science which sets in order those observations which lie open to every man every day and hour, experience can only mean the total cognitive result of living, and includes interpretations quite as truly as it does the matter of sense. Even more truly, since this matter of sense is a hypothetical something which we never can seize as such, free from all interpretative working over." ("On Topical Geometry" CP 7.538)

 

More or less what we call experience is vague but it is defined as the cause of our cognitions that have an historical nature (as opposed to abstract ideas). Note that Peirce's use ends up entailing what is called Cognitive Externalism in philosophy. That is experience need not be something I'm consciously aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't have time to really join in the discussion (nor much to say). I do agree that "experience" is one of those vague terms which we all think we understand but which in technical arguments can hide a lot of disagreements.

My own use is more following Peirce's. "The historic happenings which affect men’s beliefs [are] called experience. [...] As for this experience under the influence of which beliefs are formed what is that? It is nothing but the forceful element in the course of life. Whatever it is that in our history wears out our attempts to resist it, that is experience. Its sanction is the best possible: victory. The maxim that we ought to be “guided” by experience means that we had better submit at once to that to which we must submit at last." ("Grand Logic 1893", MS [R] 408:146-7)

"For an experience is the irresistible influence from without which an incident exerts upon the mind. An experience may be either cognitive or emotional; but by experience philosophers mean the aggregate of cognitive experiences. Life presents a course of experience…" ("On the Logic of Quantity and especially of Infinity" MS [R] 16:7; PM 48)

"I use the word 'experience' in a much broader sense than it carries in the special sciences. For those sciences, experience is that which their special means of observation directly bring to light, and it is contrasted with the interpretations of those observations which are effected by connecting these experiences with what we otherwise know. But for philosophy, which is the science which sets in order those observations which lie open to every man every day and hour, experience can only mean the total cognitive result of living, and includes interpretations quite as truly as it does the matter of sense. Even more truly, since this matter of sense is a hypothetical something which we never can seize as such, free from all interpretative working over." ("On Topical Geometry" CP 7.538)

 

More or less what we call experience is vague but it is defined as the cause of our cognitions that have an historical nature (as opposed to abstract ideas). Note that Peirce's use ends up entailing what is called Cognitive Externalism in philosophy. That is experience need not be something I'm consciously aware of.

Thanks.  I know we have gone round and round on this, but I think I will stick with James and Dewey unsurprisingly ;)

This seems a bit vague and less definable to me, and more like "stuff you would put on a resume" as "experience" than what interests me- primarily the difference between "raw feels"- the immediate sense of what is happening RIGHT NOW and how it "hits" my consciousness vs how I recall it later or put it into words, and therefore necessarily interpreting it.  To me, that is "reality" as we experience it directly, about as unfiltered as we are capable of seeing it.  After we process it- it is processed!  It is no longer raw material, it has been codified, classified, name, rank and serial number assigned. ;)  "At 10:07 PM on January 4, I saw a meteor flash from East to West across the sky"

THAT is the story of the experience, but not the raw feel of it.

I don't mean to imply that a "raw feel" is not interpreted in some sense- but it is the content of that interpretation as it hits the consciousness that interests me.

A red car flashing by

Surprise at a grand vista opening up

A growl in the night, a flash in the sky, the face of your love, - those pre-verbal immediate flashes or recognitions as opposed to the story - "I was asleep in camp and then I awoke to a growl outside the tent and then I ...."

That is the difference in my mind between a "raw feel" and "an experience"

"An experience" is a story, the "raw feel" is the immediate sensation- the visceral reaction before it is verbalized.   That's kind of the way I see it.

I don't understand Peirce's words at all- they seem too vague.

This is Dewey- contrast that with Peirce:

Quote

 

Experience occurs continuously, because the interaction of live creature and environing conditions is involved in the very process of living. Under conditions of resistance and conflict, aspects and elements of the self and the world that are implicated in this interaction qualify experience with emotions and ideas so that conscious intent emerges. Oftentimes, however, the experience had is inchoate. Things are experienced but not in such a way that they are composed into an experience. There is distraction and dispersion; what we observe and what we think, what we desire and what we get, are at odds with each other. We put our hands to the plough and turn back; we start and then we stop, not because the experience has reached the end for the sake of which it was initiated but because of extraneous interruptions or of inner lethargy.

In contrast with such experience, we have an experience when the material experienced runs its course to fulfillment. Then and then only is it integrated within and demarcated in the general stream of experience from other experiences. A piece of work is finished in a way that is satisfactory; a problem receives its solution; a game is played through; a situation, whether that of eating a meal, playing a game of chess, carrying on a conversation, writing a book, or taking part in a political campaign, is so rounded out that its close is a consummation and not a cessation. Such an experience is a whole and carries with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency. It is an experience.

 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm

These experiences of the first type, inchoate direct flashes of intelligence are often of the form that "religious experience " takes.  And this is their importance.

A flash of Truth, a sudden tear in the eye, a flash of ineffable love. Without these there would be no religious experience. And these flashes of intelligence, like the flash of a meteor across the night sky, can be seen as "external" and "objective" since at the moment, it seems we had nothing to do with their appearance, nothing more than we had with the appearance of the meteor.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This seems a bit vague and less definable to me, and more like "stuff you would put on a resume" as "experience" than what interests me- primarily the difference between "raw feels"- the immediate sense of what is happening RIGHT NOW and how it "hits" my consciousness vs how I recall it later or put it into words, and therefore necessarily interpreting it.  To me, that is "reality" as we experience it directly, about as unfiltered as we are capable of seeing it. 

To be clear Peirce includes that as well in his notion of Firstness. That, when looking at phenomenology, is the "raw feel" that then gets interpreted. Where I think Peirce's notion of experience has its greatest strength is that whole Externalism element. Effectively (and perhaps this is why you prefer what you see as James & Dewey's approach) what experience is tends to just be an other word for reality.  However unlike with Descartes there's no inside or outside distinction and thus no dualism or the like.

Edit: I should note that Peirce distinguishes reality from experience. One is the cause while the other is the object of the final representation of the causes. So when Peirce talks about reality he is more talking in terms of this fated representation. "The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you." "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." This is a subtle distinction but makes since in his overall taxonomy. It gets at the distinction between an object and its representation. The representation is truth and its object is reality. One could argue that this object is very close to what experience is though. This gets subtle though.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/3/2019 at 10:43 AM, clarkgoble said:

To be clear Peirce includes that as well in his notion of Firstness. That, when looking at phenomenology, is the "raw feel" that then gets interpreted. Where I think Peirce's notion of experience has its greatest strength is that whole Externalism element. Effectively (and perhaps this is why you prefer what you see as James & Dewey's approach) what experience is tends to just be an other word for reality.  However unlike with Descartes there's no inside or outside distinction and thus no dualism or the like.

Edit: I should note that Peirce distinguishes reality from experience. One is the cause while the other is the object of the final representation of the causes. So when Peirce talks about reality he is more talking in terms of this fated representation. "The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you." "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." This is a subtle distinction but makes since in his overall taxonomy. It gets at the distinction between an object and its representation. The representation is truth and its object is reality. One could argue that this object is very close to what experience is though. This gets subtle though.

And this is where I would differ with him and go with Wittgenstein who sees any representation as perpetuating dualism.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      Come Follow Me, weekly readings-
      I'm wondering if those of you more well read (not hard) than me might know of opinions, LDS and otherwise, that suggest the every cell of the Savior's body suffered for us, in Gethsemane.
      Thanks
    • By Bernard Gui
      In sacrament meeting today, a brother announced that he had been asked to give a talk about President Oaks’ April Conference address. Most of the time, this type of talk is like a book report “Elder Oaks said this....,” “then Elder Oaks said that.....” I prefer to read the book myself rather than hear someone’s rehash of it.
      Today, however, was not one of those days. Today was transformational. Taking this quote as his starting point
      our speaker gave perhaps the best sermon I have ever heard and felt on repentance. He said at first he worried that his words might not be appropriate, but then he came to the conclusion that what he had to say was what the Lord wanted him to say. He told his story...
      A life-long member, seminary graduate, returned missionary young man who had made some very poor choices and ended up in many years of inactivity, moral degradation, addiction, depression, homelessness, self-loathing, and despondency. At a point when he was making the decision whether or not to live any longer, he thought of his father. He called him and asked if they could meet. They agreed and at that visit in their home, his father gave him a blessing during which the slate was wiped clean. Embraced by his parents, from that moment he began to take the steps that would restore his spirit, mind, and body through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Now three years later, he is sealed to a sister from our ward who had earlier suffered at the hands of an abusive ex-husband. They and their little baby boy are now a healthy and whole loving family. God be praised!
      There were many tearful eyes in the congregation, and some wept openly. We did not know of his journey, only that he had come as a great blessing into the life of our friend. I am sure many were thinking of loved ones they fear have slipped forever away from the path into forbidden areas from which there will be no return. Or perhaps there were those who are having similar feelings of uselessness and despair themselves. As the Spirit bore witness, we were given the hope that “Where will this lead?” does not necessarily have be to tragedy, but rather to deliverance, and redemption, and joy. It is possible for all of us.
      Thanks to this good brother for sharing his story of repentance, and thanks be to God and our Savior Jesus Christ. 
       
    • By Meerkat
      Is the right Church or creed the important thing, or is there something else we came here to learn?   I'm interested to hear what everyone believes and why they believe it.  That would add to our understanding of each other.  We have a good mix of people here.  I wonder if we could talk about our first person experiences on the subject and support it with simple faith, scriptures, opinion without putting anyone on the spot about their beliefs.  Maybe another way to frame the question is "What is the point of all this?  What is the purpose of this life?  Is it to embrace a certain belief, or is it to live a certain way?"  Or is it something else?
    • By Kenngo1969
      I hesitate, somewhat (though probably not enough), to do this.  (Fools rush in ... )  Though names, locales, other identifying details, and surrounding circumstances have been changed for dramatic purposes, real-life, flesh-and-blood people are involved, and perhaps this cuts through the flesh to the muscle, and through the muscle to the bone. Some time ago, I wrote a piece of "faction" ... factual fiction ... about a relationship in which I was involved once, and about the metamorphosis of a young lady for whom I once cared a great deal.  Though we're no longer as young as we once were, and though she long since has moved on, on some level, I care for her still.  I've tried hard to move on, too, and I'm not really very big on "pining" for anyone.  Hopefully no one gets the idea that that's what this is about.  I'm posting this in General Discussions in hopes that it attracts broader attention and wider traffic before the Mods decide to move it to Social Hall.  
      Love and marriage figure somewhere in here, of course.  It is a romance, after all.  I'm not necessarily interested in focusing more than in passing on those topics.  Hopefully, we can also avoid turning this into yet another thread about gay marriage.   I'm more interested in exploring broader themes of repentance, of forgiveness, of change, of metamorphosis, of what it means to recognize our identity as Children of God with a divine heritage and potential, and so on.  Anyway, without further ado, I give you the first chapter/installment of Deanna: A Story of Love and Change.
      https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/fiction-deanna-chapter-1/
×
×
  • Create New...