[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Hi David, (and Mike & Rebecca mentioned)

I see this is a response to my earlier mail, so you maybe missed
Mike's subsequent exchange ...

Objectivity / truth is provisional you say. Agreed.
Mike suggested a definition of a "new-objectivity" which included the
more subjective aspects and their interaction, and of course the idea
that whatever that interacting triplet is, it evolves. I liked it.

The problem with all of this is to avoid those rhetoricians throwing
around the pejorative "relativist" epithet. A while ago, I latched
onto Rebecca's positing "relationalism" and "trinity" as good
contributions to fixing our lingustic problems.

Ian

On 1/5/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I just think we will be better off when we accept
> that science is about thinking & creating concepts/theories
> applying them to experience, fitting up controllable experiments,
> and attaining agreement about the meaning of the results with a
> wide a community as possible. Objectivity/true? Well these
> are nice compliments, but provisional ones.
>
> DM
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question
>
>
> > Hi Mike, Bo made the similar point ...
> >
> > Would that a few such philosophers were really so powerful, but the
> > important angle is this, I believe.
> >
> > If "we" undemined objective enquiry completely that would be a
> > disaster - agreed.
> >
> > Pragmatically, as I've said many times, subjects, objects, newtonian
> > physics, are just fine for much of daily life, and will probably
> > remain so. "Objective Scientific Method" will remain central to
> > advancing "scientific" knowledge, whatever the domain, as far as I can
> > tell.
> >
> > What needs undermining is the idea that this kind of objectivity has
> > exclusive rights to advancing knowledge, rational enquiry and
> > justifying decisions in all and any domains. There is no domain in
> > REAL life (scientific or otherwsise) which is governed entirely by a
> > SOMist metaphysics. We need a working model which has subjects and
> > objects and objectivity in their rightful place, not as the fundaments
> > of metaphysics.
> >
> > We must not throw baby out with the bathwater.
> > That's not just dangerous, it's criminally low quality.
> > A more subtle mode of change is called for.
> >
> > Softee, softlee, catchee monkee - as I may have said.
> > Sorry, but I'm pasionate about this aspect :-)
> > Ian
> >
> > On 1/5/06, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> The Quality idea is extremely dangerous to objective intellectual
> >> value, for the same reason that objective intellectual value
> >> endangered social value (as described in LILA). Ever heard of the US
> >> administration's attitude to the "reality-based universe"? I get the
> >> uneasy feeling that they have a partial realisation of something like
> >> Quality. A little knowledge is an extremely dangerous thing. Just as
> >> the intellectuals in their triumph over society released biological
> >> value from its shackles to a dangerous extent, my paranoid self can't
> >> help but worry that a few powerful philosophers might be undercutting
> >> the value of objective inquiry in order to manipulate society and
> >> popular opinion to their advantage.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 1/5/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Bo, (and Platt)
> >> >
> >> > I appreciate many of the contributors to the Edge took the same direct
> >> > line, but many, and the intent of the original question was something
> >> > "true but dangerous" rather than "false and dangerous". I'm sure Platt
> >> > got it when he recognised beauty as true but dangerous..
> >> >
> >> > You said
> >> > > IMO the real danger about the MOQ is that "truth" is shown to be
> >> > > a static level that made its entry on the historical scene with the
> >> > > Greeks, already this undermines it, particularly if the MOQ is
> >> > > supposed to introduce a "many truths" reality as you, Paul
> >> > > apostles, want it to ;-).
> >> >
> >> > I actually think you are confused here. I don't understand your point.
> >> > I do not believe truth is static in any greek or SOMist sense, but
> >> > evolves in line with the MoQ. Obviously the MoQ "undermines" anyone
> >> > who does believe it. I don't introduce "many truths" - just a
> >> > different, paradoxical, evolving truth - no arbitrary relativism here.
> >> > (Subject of many of the Edge responses by the way.)
> >> >
> >> > Do you believe "truth" is a static level (in any metaphysics of
> >> > reality) ?
> >> >
> >> > You also said that I seem to "relish" the destabilising effect.
> >> > That could not be further from the truth. I'm an evolutionary, not a
> >> > revolutionary. My whole interest is in avoiding the catastrophe. I'm
> >> > acutely aware of the "danger of untrammelled truth. My objective is to
> >> > find ways of getting the means for evolving truth into the mainstream.
> >> > At present MoQ is my best hope. The difficult part is how to get it
> >> > into the mainstream scientific and philosophical questions you
> >> > mention, without rejection and destruction - a constructive synthesis.
> >> >
> >> > Some eggs will always get broken, the kitchen will always get hot. The
> >> > point (of anything in life) is to make sure any collateral damage is
> >> > minimised on the path to progress. ie being aware of the dangers, in
> >> > order NOT to escalate them. I relish that problem, not the
> >> > consequences of the dangers.
> >> >
> >> > How you cannot understand my position after all this time is baffling.
> >> > A bit like Platt, I know you are not that dumb :-)
> >> > Ian
> >> > moq_discuss mailing list
> >> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> > Archives:
> >> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >> >
> >> moq_discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>