Human, All-Too-Human

[SpeedOfSound]

I'm going to kick myself for writing that post. If this were any other time ....but I gotta a project to do and I'm weak!

Let me sleep on it.

Well if you kick yourself then it will all be good for me as long as you really kick hard.

[SpeedOfSound]

Jerome, I'm puzzled. Sure, you've had a few compliments for your OP - and I understand why, given that it was well-presented, etc.. But you've been forced, since, to confront significant flaws within your reasoning therein - none of which you have addressed ...

Blah blah fucking blah. Yes they have all been addressed over and over by myself and others and you ignore it.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop pretending that you have refuted anything and actually work at understanding what is being said here.

Your record is stuck.

Yours is still on the shelf. We are waiting to hear it.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

You've made some hefty claims about 'us' not being able to do metaphysics. You seriously need to justify these claims, or else how can we have 'a debate'?

I've not made hefty claims at all. I've said that there are no grounds on which to suppose we can do metaphysics. I've offered my 'argument of language' that basically states that, put simply, there is no reason to believe that language used to describe empirical processes can be used reliably to describe 'other' processes.

Indeed, 'reliable' itself is a puzzle, since it is empirical. Basically, we have no words or concepts whatsoever to refer to the empirical.. We don't even know how we would measure a sort of accuracy.

In other words, prove that you are open to debate, or withdraw yourself from it, along with your preconceived ontology and epistemology.

The notions of this 'preconceived ontology' have been rebuked, mainly by Surendra. You've made not a single point that sticks. Now, you can complain about the solidity of my original post, and you're welcome to do so, but to suggest that I should open myself to 'debate' merely because you want my post to be unfounded is silly. You likened your project to a seige: There you are, Quixote firing a single shot pistol at the a city with hundred feet walls and claiming that with your Trumpet, you have brought them down. This is not Jericho, Jamest, and you are going to have to work a lot harder to even put a dent in my argument.

[FBM]

I don't have the time to fully engage what I see to be some errors in approach in this thread, so I'll just have to drop the Feyerabend bomb and promise to come back later and see how much damage it did.

[jamest]

I did want to send out props to jamest though since Serpenti seems to be getting all the glory

Sure, he has 'a following'. Rather, the philosophy he represents, does.

Jamest's language might not be as flowery at Serpenti's... but I don't see where any of you have laid many of his key critiques to rest, though you seem convinced you have.

Exactly. Thanks for that.

[Surendra Darathy]

I don't have the time to fully engage what I see to be some errors in approach in this thread, so I'll just have to drop the Feyerabend bomb and promise to come back later and see how much damage it did.

I wonder what would happen if you put Feyerabend and Peter W. Atkins in a room together. Would they mutually-annihilate, like matter and anti-matter?

Atkins doesn't have time, either, to engage fully with the errors in this thread. Atkins says

It's not arrogant if you're right.

This is only a critique of a discursive approach that rules out any principle or measure of "progress". If we simply get no farther than asking ill-formed questions, at least we should try to answer what somatic benefit we achieve from having done so. It's something that feels good to us, so we do it, but it is a mistake to pretend that anything beyond that is at stake.

[FBM]

I don't have the time to fully engage what I see to be some errors in approach in this thread, so I'll just have to drop the Feyerabend bomb and promise to come back later and see how much damage it did.

I wonder what would happen if you put Feyerabend and Peter W. Atkins in a room together. Would they mutually-annihilate, like matter and anti-matter?

Atkins doesn't have time, either, to engage fully with the errors in this thread. Atkins says

It's not arrogant if you're right.

This is only a critique of a discursive approach that rules out any principle or measure of "progress". If we simply get no farther than asking ill-formed questions, at least we should try to answer what somatic benefit we achieve from having done so. It's something that feels good to us, so we do it, but it is a mistake to pretend that anything beyond that is at stake.

Thanks. I'll get right on Atkins first thing tomorrow. It's 1 a.m. here and time to

[Surendra Darathy]

So Feyerabend considers methodology oppressive and hegemonic. Now I no longer have to search diligently for the roots of multiculturalist critiques of "Western Science". It isn't "Western". The meaning of running into a brick wall is "Splat!", and predicting just how big and flat will be the stain on the wall is not chopped liver.

Whoever put up that web site had motives in quoting the material he chose. Science can actually analyse those motives. Maybe not very well, yet, but the woo-heads know...

die fetten Jahre sind vorbei!

The rise of modern science coincides with the suppression of non-Western tribes by Western invaders.

Notice how cagey is PF in avoiding any mention of cause-and-effect. Metaphysical speculation is verboten. You get to draw your own conclusions, unlike in the case where a methodology is present.

[FBM]

So Feyerabend considers methodology oppressive and hegemonic. Now I no longer have to search diligently for the roots of multiculturalist critiques of "Western Science". It isn't "Western". The meaning of running into a brick wall is "Splat!", and predicting just how big and flat will be the stain on the wall is not chopped liver.

Whoever put up that web site had motives in quoting the material he chose. Science can actually analyse those motives. Maybe not very well, yet, but the woo-heads know their days are numbered.

I'm on my last leg here for tonight, but I have to ask, 'Are you a rationalist?' No, I'm not being snarky, I'm just trying to get a fix on your position. Can't afford to make assumptions. What, specifically, do you see at fault with Feyerbend's statements? Is it safe to assume you're familiar with Hume's problem with induction? Can you (re)solve it? Sextus Empircus' problem of the criterion?

Oboy, I must sleep...I'm rambling, I think.

[Surendra Darathy]

What, specifically, do you see at fault with Feyerbend's statements? Is it safe to assume you're familiar with Hume's problem with induction? Can you (re)solve it? Sextus Empircus' problem of the criterion?

The problem I see with Feyerabend's approach is that he is critiquing methodology without being able to show that he can apply a methodology. This is like complaining that your captain is flying you unnecessarily through turbulence when you don't know how to pilot an aircraft. It's the complaint you see in letters to the editor that the city council is not very good at repairing the potholes in the streets without understanding anything about kickbacks to construction companies who donate to political campaigns.

It's now a bit clearer to me where some of the roots of post-modern multiculturalism have sunk themselves. Hydroponics at its best!

I've no objection if Feyerabend wants to contribute his opinions and commentary on human history. Philosophy it isn't, and Feyerabend and similar thinkers have no clue about the practice of science.

None of which is to say that I am ungrateful finally to read perceptive questions in this thread.

'Are you a rationalist?'

Suffice it to say I am better at eschewing ideology than Feyerabend has shown himself to be.

Is it safe to assume you're familiar with Hume's problem with induction?

Is it safe to assume that familiarity with Hume's problem of induction need never lead to methodology? The only lectures in philosophy I ever attended focused on Hume and Berkeley, and I got a mark of B from a lecturer who didn't score anyone lower than B or higher than A. For that, I am justifiably proud.

[FBM]

Oh, boy. I can see this is going to take some reading up. First, I have to confess that I only heard about Feyerabend a couple of days ago. Against Method was recommended (not praised) reading by my Philosophy prof. I've also just heard from one other person to be cautious with Feyerabend. I read what he said about renormalization and thought that made a lot of sense. I haven't had time to read him deeply yet. I'm not a fan, nor a detractor. Yet.

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with forming critiques of method without laying out a method of your own. Pyrrhonist and Madhyamakan Buddhist philosophers did that all the time (in the sense of not proposing ontologies, I mean. They obviously had methods in the strict sense). It did see to bug the shit outta their colleagues, tho.

[RebeccaSmick]

I don't have the time to fully engage what I see to be some errors in approach in this thread, so I'll just have to drop the Feyerabend bomb and promise to come back later and see how much damage it did.

Not sure how reliable Feyerabend's knowledge of science is? I'd be a bit careful of his work, 'Against Method'. He was one of the targets of
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their book, 'Fashionable Nonsense - Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science on pages 78-85.

[RebeccaSmick]

Sorry FBM, just caught up to end of the thread.. didn't see you had already made mention...

[FBM]

Sorry FBM, just caught up to end of the thread.. didn't see you had already made mention...

No sweat. I've got my finger in a lot of pots right now. It's hard for me to keep up with them all. I've got some good recommended reading from both you and Surendra recently.

[JimC]

I suppose Popper is beyond the pale in this thread.

I enjoyed "Conjectures and Refutations"...