Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And Tobin thought ME disagreeable?

Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim
Murphy
Sent: 20 June 2007 13:34
To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

Oh dear, G K Chesterton again :(

Here he is (see below) at his paternalistic and supercilious best, with a
little thought for the day on the feast of Saint Andrew (the patron Saint of
Soctland). 

Forget about the Empire, the highland clearances, the administrative
famines, the death squads and enforced migrations (ethnic cleansings) in
Ireland and in Scotland. Forget that a significant element of Scotland's
elites colluded with the English and forget the Ulster plantation and
Cromwell and everything else, it's all about what we have done or not done
"in spirit".

See how he is "quite certain" about things and how he says "Scotch" by which
he means the Victorian pastiche of Scottish culture that served the local
elites and the English as an ethnic signifier to demarcate the racial and
ethnic hierarchy in the British Empire. See how it is "we" (The English) who
are the protagonists here. It is all about "our" failure and "our" success.

Vacuous waffle... A sort of valium for the conscience of the christian
gentleman.

---

ST. ANDREW'S DAY

I AM quite certain that Scotland is a nation; I am quite certain that
nationality is the key of Scotland; I am quite certain that all our success
with Scotland has been due to the fact that we have in spirit treated it as
a nation. I am quite certain that Ireland is a nation. I am quite certain
that nationality is the key of Ireland I am quite certain that all our
failure in Ireland arose from the fact that we would not in spirit treat it
as a nation. It would be difficult to find, even among the innumerable
examples that exist, a stronger example of the immensely superior importance
of sentiment, to what is called practicality, than this case of the two
sister nations. It is not that we have encouraged a Scotchman to be rich; it
is not that we have encouraged a Scotchman to be active; it is not that we
have encouraged a Scotchman to be free. It is that we have quite definitely
encouraged a Scotchman to be Scotch.

G K Chesterton

=======
 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave
Taylor
Sent: 20 June 2007 01:52
To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

>I view the extent of our knowledge as a tiny dot in the midst of a vast 
>if
not infinite universe of our utter ignorance. [So viewing knowledge as] the
necessary background to error is triumphalist.

A great argument, Tobin.  As I'm quoting Chesterton tonight, he's the only
other person I've seen make it: in his own way of course.  "There are an
infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands".

Best

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
Nellhaus
Sent: 20 June 2007 00:28
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

Hi Louis--

>              I doubt that Tobin intended to express the optimism of 
> such a guarantee, but I thought others might read it that way.

Exactly.  I don't see error as *necessarily* leading to knowledge or truth
at all, as my examples of "That particular flame was being mean" and my
tongue in cheek comment about dating both suggest.  Mostly error succeeds
error succeeds error -- the production of knowledge takes a hell of a lot of
work.  Likewise, people certainly do commit errors in orther to cover up
other errors (althoguh that's at a sociological level that isn't my
immediate subject).  For the most part, I view the extent of our knowledge
as a tiny dot in the midst of a vast if not infinite universe of our utter
ignorance.  So it seems to me that the shoe in fact is on the other foot: 
the idea that *knowledge* (not simply hypotheses, beliefs or intentions) is 

Tobin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Irwin" <louisirwin9@xxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11


> Tobin wrote: "I for one wouldn't say that all hypotheses and beliefs 
> can be categorized as knowledge, but it really doesn't matter for my 
> specific argument, which is *strictly* that error can only occur if 
> there's a real world that exists independently of our minds, which 
> gives us realism and off we go.  It doesn't matter whether there's 
> knowledge of any sort first: all that matters for my particular 
> argument is that error is possible.  If one admits that it is, then 
> the ontological argument follows."
>
> The very concept of making an error is incoherent except in relation 
> to a concept of getting things right.  That's a standard response in 
> philosophy to a skeptic who claims that everything we believe is in 
> error.  But if we (perhaps only some, not all) were brains in vats 
> [sorry for not rehearsing this - think "The Matrix"] with a concept of 
> error (and even a thorough understanding of CR), then indeed our 
> concept of error would presuppose a concept of an external world, in 
> the way Tobin suggests.  Moreover, there would be an external world 
> (the vats, etc.), so realism would be true - but that would be rather 
> cold comfort, at least for those brains in vats, since the real world 
> would be quite different from what they believed about it.
> And their "beliefs about the real world" would not even count as 
> beliefs ABOUT the real world.
>
> Note that I am NOT suggesting that such a possibility would undermine 
> the veracity of our beliefs - that would be a fallacious argument in 
> favor of skepticism, but I am not making that argument.  I am simply 
> claiming that a concept of error does not guarantee that the inferred 
> reality accords with our beliefs about reality.  I doubt that Tobin 
> intended to express the optimism of such a guarantee, but I thought 
> others might read it that way.
>
> Louis Irwin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Tobin Nellhaus
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:09 PM
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
>
> Hi Jan--
>
> We may be working with different concepts of knowledge, in which case 
> we're probably talking past each other.  I recognize your points, and 
> might be persuaded on some.  But in general I've come to resist the 
> application of the term "knowledge" -- or much worse, "information" -- 
> to cover more and more of what goes on in our heads.  For example, in 
> art or cultural theory, the question sometimes arises whether art is a 
> form of information or knowledge, and like pretty much everyone else I 
> used to say "Of course!"
> (I'm in theater studies.)  But now I view that claim as a defensive 
> reaction
>
> which accepts computer processing (or similar systems) as the best 
> model of the mind.  Knowledge and information are certainly part of 
> what goes into making art, but that doesn't mean that art simply *is* 
> knowledge.  Hence I
> *agree* that (for example) it doesn't make sense to call the revision 
> of a poem or musical score a matter of "correcting errors,"
> transcription mistakes aside, although sometimes that may indeed be 
> the proper concept ("it doesn't make sense for this character to do 
> such-and-such," "this scene
>
> takes the play in the wrong direction," that sort of thing).  Actually 
> I can't see how you could have imagined I'd say that revisions are all 
> matters
>
> of correcting errors, that doesn't follow from what I've said.  So we 
> apparently agree on some of the limits to what can appropriately be 
> called error, and likewise you may be more amenable to some of my 
> position than you
>
> suggest.
>
> In any case, interesting as questions of the definition and extent of 
> the term "knowledge" are, they aren't actually to the point.  The only 
> issue I was driving at was that there are alternative transcendental 
> arguments for realism (*specifically* realism: not necessarily 
> materialism, the correspondence theory of truth, etc etc, even if 
> those might be consequent upon realism), and that one is the condition 
> of
possibility for error.
> Whether error must be contingent upon prior knowledge of some type is 
> obviously debatable -- I agree that it *does* require some sort of 
> conscious
>
> or unconscious hypothesis or belief ("all eggs are white," "this table 
> will hold the weight of my arm," "I'm the only thing in the universe,"
> whatever).
>
> I for one wouldn't say that all hypotheses and beliefs can be 
> categorized as
>
> knowledge, but it really doesn't matter for my specific argument, 
> which is
> *strictly* that error can only occur if there's a real world that 
> exists independently of our minds, which gives us realism and off we 
> go.  It doesn't matter whether there's knowledge of any sort first:
> all that matters
>
> for my particular argument is that error is possible.  If one admits 
> that it
>
> is, then the ontological argument follows.
>
> One other comment:
>
>>                     And at minimum, in normal circumstances, a 
>> mistake always leads to some (new) knowledge, viz. not to repeat that 
>> mistake.
>
> Apparently you haven't dated recently....
>
> Cheers,
>
> T.
>
> ---
> Tobin Nellhaus
> nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
> "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism




_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism




_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism