Poll Regarding Our View Of Where The Non-Spiritual Evidence Leads

[Stroopwafel]

If I may, Nietzsche's word "God is dead" isn't so much a proclamation as it is an observation. In fact, Nietzsche could have said that God is dead even if he would have believed in Him. It wouldn't have mattered for him whether God be understood as transcendent ("traditional" Christianity) or as a human being that reached godhood (Mormonism), because it is the notion of God that is dead.

 

Nietzsche saw that God was dead in his contemporaries -- although they didn't realize it, much less understood what it means -- and it scared him. He saw what this implied for the future, what this would lead to, i.e. Nihilism. What does it mean for one when there is no God? As Dostoyevsky wrote, is it that "everything is permitted"? Nietzsche wanted to provide a way out of this Nihilism, provide something Jenseits von Gut und Böse, something Beyond Good and Evil.

 

My 2 cents.

[mfbukowski]

If I may, Nietzsche's word "God is dead" isn't so much a proclamation as it is an observation. In fact, Nietzsche could have said that God is dead even if he would have believed in Him. It wouldn't have mattered for him whether God be understood as transcendent ("traditional" Christianity) or as a human being that reached godhood (Mormonism), because it is the notion of God that is dead.

 

Nietzsche saw that God was dead in his contemporaries -- although they didn't realize it, much less understood what it means -- and it scared him. He saw what this implied for the future, what this would lead to, i.e. Nihilism. What does it mean for one when there is no God? As Dostoyevsky wrote, is it that "everything is permitted"? Nietzsche wanted to provide a way out of this Nihilism, provide something Jenseits von Gut und Böse, something Beyond Good and Evil.

 

My 2 cents.

For N the ubermensch is one who creates himself TO BE God - for himself.  There is no good or evil except that which one creates for oneself.  This is hardly LDS theology but presents some interesting implications for what it means to become a god

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................  

Thanks for you very kind words.  If you don't mind, I would like to discuss this with you further by pm in a day or two- I have a few busy days ahead.  You have brought up some very intriguing ideas- thanks again!

Pm me with your email address also, so that I can send two documents which I have on your views, from which you might find some useful quotes.

[jkwilliams]

Frankly I think they provide a useful stepping stone to a more sophisticated understanding of what Kuhn and others might say about science and what we call "facts".  As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations. 

 

I think when one starts seeing science as its own kind of "myth" - as a humanly constructed view of the universe depending on the limits of human understanding for definitions- I think that the distinctions you are citing become unnecessary.  A true understanding of what "rational argument" really is makes one question the boundaries of what "rational" even means. 

 

As one very familiar with hermeneutics I think you are well acquainted with what language can and cannot do and how much "reality" depends on interpretation.  Just looking at the Copenhagen interpretation in physics, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for example, is illuminating.  Obviously when one starts speaking of history, what is "objectively true" because even blurrier by a few quantum levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

These particular problems of course have been addressed to a degree- but the philosophical point is still valid is that when we try to see objective reality, most often we are looking at what Rorty would call a "Mirror" in which we see ourselves looking back.  (See Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature")

 

Even in science we end up seeing what we want to see.

 

Kuhn would disagree with that last statement. Scientific paradigms shift precisely because scientists are no longer seeing what they want to see in the results of their research. That is, of course, the difference between science and ideology: science depends on data that can be reproduced infinitely. If I combine sugar and sulfuric acid, I'm always going to get a column of carbon. If I don't, then I may have to adjust the paradigm to account for that anomaly. Ideology rarely adjusts its paradigm.

 

Yes, it's dangerous to put too much faith in science, but it's equally foolhardy to wave it off flippantly. Nietzsche is right that there are no facts, per se, but interpretations, but acknowledging that is not to reduce science to a mere ideology no more or less valid than any other. I can choose not to believe that combining sulfuric acid and sugar gives you carbon, but what I believe isn't going to change that result.

Edited February 20, 2014 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

Kuhn would disagree with that last statement. Scientific paradigms shift precisely because scientists are no longer seeing what they want to see in the results of their research. That is, of course, the difference between science and ideology: science depends on data that can be reproduced infinitely. If I combine sugar and sulfuric acid, I'm always going to get a column of carbon. If I don't, then I may have to adjust the paradigm to account for that anomaly. Ideology rarely adjusts its paradigm.

 

Yes, it's dangerous to put too much faith in science, but it's equally foolhardy to wave it off flippantly. Nietzsche is right that there are no facts, per se, but interpretations, but acknowledging that is not to reduce science to a mere ideology no more or less valid than any other. I can choose not to believe that combining sulfuric acid and sugar gives you carbon, but what I believe isn't going to change that result.

Read some Rorty or at least watch that video which I have asked you to watch a hundred times.

 

How's that theory of truth going John?  No progress yet I see.

 

Notice I didn't mention Kuhn, so you are still barking up the wrong tree.

 

Please no pms this time.

Edited February 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

 

Notice I didn't mention Kuhn, so you are still barking up the wrong tree.

So, the following is not referring to Kuhn:

 

Frankly I think they provide a useful stepping stone to a more sophisticated understanding of what Kuhn and others might say about science and what we call "facts". As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations.

 

Your post started out discussing Kuhn and Nietzsche regarding science. My response included my thoughts on how Kuhn and Nietzsche discuss science. If you would rather not respond to what I said, no problem here. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2014 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

Kuhn would disagree with that last statement. Scientific paradigms shift precisely because scientists are no longer seeing what they want to see in the results of their research. That is, of course, the difference between science and ideology: science depends on data that can be reproduced infinitely. If I combine sugar and sulfuric acid, I'm always going to get a column of carbon. If I don't, then I may have to adjust the paradigm to account for that anomaly. Ideology rarely adjusts its paradigm.

 

Yes, it's dangerous to put too much faith in science, but it's equally foolhardy to wave it off flippantly. Nietzsche is right that there are no facts, per se, but interpretations, but acknowledging that is not to reduce science to a mere ideology no more or less valid than any other. I can choose not to believe that combining sulfuric acid and sugar gives you carbon, but what I believe isn't going to change that result.

Ooops you're right- I did mention Kuhn- I had forgotten.

I really do not want to get into one of our drawn out go-nowhere semantic arguments but just underline one part of your quote and let anyone who actually cares to see if they think it is consistent with the rest of your post.

 

 

Scientific paradigms shift precisely because scientists are no longer seeing what they want to see in the results of their research.

That says literally that the scientists pick what they "WANT" to see in the results of their research.  THAT proves my point that science is about the subjective INTERPRETATION of the data.  That was my point.

 

The rest of the post, I suppose is supposed to be about the objectivity of the data which you have already implied was ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

 

The truth that elements combined in the same proportions always perform the same way under the same conditions has nothing to do with the theory we dream up to interpret WHY they do that.  That is Kuhn's central implication as well as Nietzsche's. THAT is the central point which you always fail to grasp in all our discussions about "truth".  THAT is the point Rorty makes with force in the video you refuse to watch.  The fact is that Kuhn arguably stole his central ideas from Polanyi:

 

In his book Science, Faith and Society (1946), Polanyi set out his opposition to a positivist account of science, noting that it ignores the role which personal commitments play in the practice of science. Polanyi was invited to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 1951-2 at Aberdeen. A revised version of his lectures were later published as Personal Knowledge (1958). In this book Polanyi claims that all knowledge claims (including those which are derived from rules) rely on personal judgements.^[4] He denies that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically. All knowing, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments. Polanyi argued that the assumptions which underlie critical philosophy are not only false, they undermine the commitments which motivate our highest achievements. He advocates a fiduciary post-critical approach, in which we recognise that we believe more than we can prove, and know more than we can say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

 

Polanyi got his ideas from William James and the other pragmatists who got them ultimately from Nietzsche and the romantics.  Rorty is the most notable of this school of thought in the present day, though of course he has recently past away.  His heir apparent may be a young woman named Chantal Bax, but we shall see.

 

So this is the genealogy of the notion that scientific data is as subject to interpretation and linguistic ambiguity as anything else, and is really the basis for my comments.

 

I really don't want to get into this with you John, it always goes the same direction with you baiting me and I respond and it continues forever.  I just get so frustrated with you, frankly, that somehow you get me to respond.  No more.  You caught me in an error- that I had not mentioned Kuhn, when I did, so I responded this time, but no more.

Edited February 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

So, the following is not referring to Kuhn:

 

 

Your post started out discussing Kuhn and Nietzsche regarding science. My response included my thoughts on how Kuhn and Nietzsche discuss science. If you would rather not respond to what I said, no problem here. 

 

 

 

Incidentally I liked it better without the edits. It was pure John Williams complete with snark.  When you respond to a post, an email notification goes out with the unedited post.  Check your preferences I think you can change that there.

[jkwilliams]

Incidentally I liked it better without the edits. It was pure John Williams complete with snark.  When you respond to a post, an email notification goes out with the unedited post.  Check your preferences I think you can change that there.

 

I'm sorry. I initially responded to your snark with my own, and then I thought better of it.

[jkwilliams]

Ooops you're right- I did mention Kuhn- I had forgotten.

I really do not want to get into one of our drawn out go-nowhere semantic arguments but just underline one part of your quote and let anyone who actually cares to see if they think it is consistent with the rest of your post.

 

That says literally that the scientists pick what they "WANT" to see in the results of their research.  THAT proves my point that science is about the subjective INTERPRETATION of the data.  That was my point.

 

The rest of the post, I suppose is supposed to be about the objectivity of the data which you have already implied was ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

 

The truth that elements combined in the same proportions always perform the same way under the same conditions has nothing to do with the theory we dream up to interpret WHY they do that.  That is Kuhn's central implication as well as Nietzsche's. THAT is the central point which you always fail to grasp in all our discussions about "truth".  THAT is the point Rorty makes with force in the video you refuse to watch.  The fact is that Kuhn arguably stole his central ideas from Polanyi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

 

Polanyi got his ideas from William James and the other pragmatists who got them ultimately from Nietzsche and the romantics.  Rorty is the most notable of this school of thought in the present day, though of course he has recently past away.  His heir apparent may be a young woman named Chantal Bax, but we shall see.

 

So this is the genealogy of the notion that scientific data is as subject to interpretation and linguistic ambiguity as anything else, and is really the basis for my comments.

 

I really don't want to get into this with you John, it always goes the same direction with you baiting me and I respond and it continues forever.  I just get so frustrated with you, frankly, that somehow you get me to respond.  No more.  You caught me in an error- that I had not mentioned Kuhn, when I did, so I responded this time, but no more.

 

I am sorry if you think I bait you, as that has never been my intent.

 

For Kuhn, it's not that the interpretation is subjective but rather that it is constrained by the prevailing paradigm. Scientists assume that the prevailing paradigm explains all phenomena, so their experiments are done with that paradigm in mind, and the paradigm determines how the results are interpreted. So, it's not so much what they want to see as what they expect to see. Revolutions in science come when something unexpected is seen, which is what I was commenting on.

 

If science were only about subjectively seeing what scientists want to see, then scientific revolutions could never occur, as scientists would simply do as Paul Simon suggested and see what they want to see and disregard the rest. The revolution comes when the anomalous has been repeated so much that it simply cannot be disregarded.

 

I know I've said and written things that have irritated and angered you, and I'm sorry for that. Maybe you're right that it's fruitless to try to talk to each other. I think I've burned my bridges with you far enough, and I don't blame you for thinking I'm a jerk. My own fault.