Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn

>What is supposed to happen [if the synthesis is already being argued for in
a dialectical dialogue]? I suppose the parties could continue with whatever
work they have to do, feeling somewhat encouraged.

That is precisely what I hope would happen, as it did with me when I
encountered CR. The difficulty with expecting that to happen is that most
people do not imagine there is an existing answer, or even an answer, and
many display the "not invented here" syndrome.

>I don't accept your dichotomy between 'intuitive' and 'sensory' thinkers.
We all think intuitively inter alia, and CR is oriented against such splits.

My usage is an ellipsis, the Myers-Briggs evidence confirming Jung's
professional experience that people tend to be better at one or the other
type of reasoning.  Are you objecting to the ellipsis or to the fact that we
are not all the same?

When I argue for this I argue not only empirically but also CR-wise in terms
of "how is it possible". Yesterday I was grateful for your acknowledging
(Wed 19/06/2007 23:29) the force of my argument about  recognition of error:

>>I particularly like the bit about the automatic recognition of error being
necessary for the appearance that there is no error ...

But previously (and to some people's taste ad nauseum) I've pointed out (on
the basis of neural circuits being electrical and my experience of how
error-correction works in electrical computers) that that is a sufficient
explanation of how intuition works; and that Claude Shannon not only showed
how to automate conventional logic in this way, his revolutionary concept of
information was introduced as a means of making feasible the similar
automation of error recognition and correction I became familiar with.

To go back to where you started, what has NOT encouraged me is the complete
disinterest (as yet) shown by philosophers and social scientists among most
others in the work of Shannon, whose social impact has perhaps even exceeded
Newton's, and been far more relevant to the human aspects of philosophy and
social science.

Thanks for the comments, anyway.

Dave   

 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig
Sent: 20 June 2007 09:46
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue

Hi Dave

What is supposed to happen? I suppose the parties could continue with
whatever work they have to do, feeling somewhat encouraged.

I don't accept your dichotomy between 'intuitive' and 'sensory' thinkers. We
all think intuitively inter alia, and CR is oriented against such splits.

Mervyn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Creative Dialogue


> Hi Mervyn
>
> Please excuse me joining in, but this has gotten to be as big an issue for
> me as it seems to be for George.  Your first comment helps me understand
> where you are coming from:-
>
>>what you [George] call 'critical convergence' I'd call 'creative 
>>dialogue'.
>
> As I see it, if dialogue is "creative" then it MAY be leading to
> convergence.  It may however lead to incomprehending but respectful
> tolerance, generate antagonism, or even lead to decisive rejection,
> depending on what it is "creating".  In other words, dialogue is not
> necessarily dialectic.  It is not necessarily the case that all parties 
> have
> part of the truth and together create the "synthesis".  What is supposed 
> to
> happen when what some parties may eventually recognise as the synthesis is
> what other parties have been arguing, in language developed within their 
> own
> "specialism", all along?
>
>>I agree with Ruth re (a) - there's not much commonality here.
>
> Having looked back at what Ruth was arguing at (a), I agree there is not
> much commonality in the SOLUTIONS offered, but I don't see that means
> George's exemplars were not AIMING for the same reality as RB: at least
> originally, though like the great Chomsky mimicking pre-quantum chemists 
> in
> that piece Tim presented to us, they may have written off the possibility 
> of
> what they were personally not yet in a position to imagine.  Peirce and
> Dewey were different types of pragmatist and a long time ago; a lot has
> happened in the field of logic since then.  Even Popper was formed before
> Shannon and Algol68.
>
> Ruth's "parsing" of RB and "losing" of these worthies was fascinating and
> worth a debate in itself. What I am getting at here comes out in her final
> comment, though.
>
>>I agree with you though [George] that it is interesting to all the time be
> comparing and contrasting thinkers; it helps in trying to figure them out 
> I
> think.
>
> Yes, but not only to figure out what they ACTUALLY said; at a deeper level
> one may be reading between the lines, figuring out what they were TRYING 
> to
> say, and learning about both that and one's own deficiencies by viewing 
> the
> problem they were addressing in light of comparison of what was understood
> by different schools then with fruitful insights [c.f. Lakatos] others 
> have
> had since.  That of course may come more easily for intuitive thinkers 
> than
> it does for sensory thinkers, whose strengths lie in dealing with the
> actual.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: 19 June 2007 19:45
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.
>
> Hi George
>
> That's fine, but what you call 'critical convergence' I'd call 'creative
> dialogue'.
>
> I agree with Ruth re (a) - there's not much commonality here.
>
> Mervyn
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George demetrion" <gdemetrion@xxxxxxx>
> To: <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.
>
>
>>
>> Third, how can there be creative dialogue if there's convergence
>>
>>
>> Mervyn,
>>
>> Critical convergence doesn't presuppose unity though it does require an
>> identification of commonalities, which does not deny differences but
>> places
>> them within the perspective of the context of the broader issue or 
>> problem
>> under investigation.  It also doesn't deny the possibility of any given
>> theory that might prove itself superio; simply that the grounds and the
>> counterclaims need to be carefully addressed.
>>
>> Briefly, to take the three related schools that I've laid out--critical
>> pragmatism (Peirce & Dewey), critical rationalism (Popper), critical
>> realism
>>
>> Commonalities:
>>
>> a)  Post Humean metaphyics
>> b)  Sustained critique of both positivism and postmodernism (Deweyan
>> analysis is commonly drawn upon by contemporary pragmatists on this even
>> as
>> some pragmatists are working out of postmodern filters
>> c)  Truth as a regulative ideal
>> d)  very rigorous work in the area of scientific philosophy (eg. Dewey's
>> Logic:  The Theory of Inquiry)
>>
>> Differences
>>
>> a)  Dewey focuses more on inquiry; Popper focuses more on the efficacy of
>> the results of inquiry and works backwards (his World, One, Two & Three)
>> b)  Bhsakar focuses more on ontology (the validity of which neither 
>> Popper
>> nor Dewey would deny) while still accepting the ineradicable gap between
>> what we can know and what is actual.
>> c)  While that's a difference neither Dewey nor Popper deny what Bhaskar
>> refers to as generative mechanisms and causal power (if I have the latter
>> right) even as they (perhaps?) focus more on more immediate issues of
>> effective problem solving as defined by the nature of the problem itself.
>>
>> There's nothing mystical in how this may be done.  It requires (and I'm
>> not
>> presuming your opposed) to greater interrdisciplinary border crossing at 
>> a
>> fairly in-depth level which speaks to fundamental issues of breadth and
>> depth, shaped, perhaps, by the preoblem at hand.
>>
>> I'd be really interested what the work in scientific essentialism may 
>> have
>> to offer--intererested, but not at this time toi the extent of 
>> undertaking
>> the hard work of gaining a substantial level of knowledge that would
>> likely
>> be needed to better appreciate how the depth and breadth of how a
>> postpositivist theoretical and research design that accepts regulative
>> truth
>> as  an operative ideal might be further enhanced.
>>
>> George Demetrion
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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