Re: [Critical-Realism] Sokal Hoax (NOT)

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred's questions to Louis:

>>First two questions, before I respond to your post. Do you agree (or not) 
>>that we each, as subjective beings that also are active physical 
>>agents, can and do employ nature's laws (physics, chemistry, biology, 
>>etc.) as the instruments by which we--as subjective beings-physically 
>>control the material world, to the extent we are each able? And also 
>>answer please, if you know, what this question has to do with 
>>emergence in "open systems" defined in terms of the above?

I answered the first of these off-list before Fred asked it.  (I.e. no, and
since he recognises that "the solution ... to this day has been beyond the
reach of definitive philosophical analysis", if he wants to see how nature
does interact with agency, he should be studying not Bhaskar but the
operation of Shannon's computers).

Fred's "definition" at his 0.b of his "system" in terms of this category
mistake itself contains a vicious regress.  How does he imagine agents form
the purpose of using the laws of nature?  Actually, we use the inherent
properties of nature rather than our references to these in "laws", and have
to learn how to select between different manifestations of these, a
Bhaskarian "power" which is not a characteristic of nature as a whole but
began to emerge with the human discovery and referential detachment of
symbolic language. We don't have to know the "laws" to use symbols and our
own nature.

>Not past systems theorists, which are not important in this context 
>because they do not address questions such as this

Here Fred seems to have a point in respect of Bertallanfy, who was a
mathematician, not a realist, and judged Shannon by his own theoretical
standards, totally neglecting Shannon's practical intent and the physical
context of his information theorems.

But what the heck.  If listers suspect Fred is sincere enough to deserve an
answer, why not respond to him off-list, as I did, and stop cluttering up
the debate about RTS?

Dave 


-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred
Zaman
Sent: 27 June 2007 13:04
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Sokal Hoax (NOT)

Brian, 
   
  You are definitely wrong on this point. It is Sokal and those of
  his ilk that implant such suggestions-a red herring designed to
  mislead and deceive. What I have developed and am describing is
  not thus designed, but rather to expose a fundamental error in
  the mechanistic-positivist worldview that its supporters are
  struggling to keep in the dark.
   
  Brian,  if truly you wish to develop an understanding of the
  basic theme, then you as well-Answer the questions I put to
  Louis. Then we can go from there. Don't worry about the big
  picture of the essay-answer the questions. They are key-the
  starting point-for the development of understanding. Not past
  systems theorists, which are not important in this context
  because they do not address questions such as this, but rather
  lead one away from such an approach. Answer the questions I put
  to Louis yesterday, please. Then, with that as the starting
  point, we can begin to make progress.
   
  Fred


Brian Dick <briandick51@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:  Hi Fred,



I still think that Louis's suggestion that you might be trying to pull a
Sokal hoax on critical realism is the best explanation for your paper so
far. Sokal conducted his experiment to see if Social Text would "publish an
article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it
flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions," as Sokal told Lingua
Franca. Your paper is certainly liberally salted with nonsense and you
apparently have attempted to flatter many CRer's ideological preconceptions,
but your "experiment" has failed to sound good.



If this is not the case, then here are some of my own humble suggestions for
improving your paper. First, change the presumptuous title. This is probably
the main reason why people are so acerbic in their responses. While you did
insert the qualifier 'A', as opposed to 'The', your attempts to develop a
critical realist theory of America are much too ambitious, especially given
the sloppy manner in which you treat Bhaskar's argument-but, hey, that's why
we are reading his text together on the list serve-to improve our
understanding of it.



Second, what do you mean by systems theory? In various places (throughout
your post, O.b.,1.i.,1.n., etc.) you argue that you are developing a
critical realist systems theory. However, it is unclear what is meant by
this. You never bring up Talcott Parsons or Niklas Luhmann, either to
develop or to critique, but these names scream out to be addressed when you
propose to be developing a systems theory. It appears that your use of the
term 'systems theory' comes solely from Bhaskar's distinction between open
and closed systems.



Furthermore, you could have addressed the classic work of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy (*General System Theory*) where he lays out a general systems
theory and differentiates open and closed systems much more clearly and
systematically than Bhaskar (of course, given Bhaskar's goals, this isn't
really a problem). Bertalanffy would be very palatable to your stated
tastes. In the preface (xxii-xxiii) he writes, "the world of symbols,
values, social entities and cultures is something very "real"; and its
embeddedness in a cosmic order of hierarchies is apt to bridge the
opposition of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" of science and the humanities,
technology and history, natural and social sciences, or in whatever way the
antithesis is formulated."



Finally, and related to the general systems theory mentioned above, you
might also look at the work of Illya Prigogine and his theory of dissipative
structures, which arise out of non-linear processes in far-from-equilibrium
states, especially in his very accessible book, *Order out of Chaos*
(coauthored with Isabelle Stengers). (This is also a good place to find a
nice discussion of emergence, yet another lacunae in your argument as Louis
pointed out in his previous post). Rather, than trying to massage Newtonian
mechanics (much more consistent with positivism) into a manner that could be
used to analyze society, why not take a look at complexity theory (and its
critique of Newtonian mechanics), which is much more consistent with
critical reaism. Furthermore, this has already been systematically done by
David L. Harvey and Michael H. Reed, so there's no need to re-invent the
wheel:



Harvey, David L. and Michael H. Reed. (1994). "The Evolution of Dissipative
Social Systems." *Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems*.
17 (4): 371-411.

----------. (1996). "Social Science as the Study of Complex Systems" in
Kiel, Douglas L. and Euel Elliot. (1996). eds. *Chaos Theory in the Social
Sciences*. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 295-323.

Reed, Michael H. and David L. Harvey. (1992). "The New Science and the
Old: Complexity and Realism in the Social Sciences." *Journal for the Theory
of Social Behavior*, 22, 353-80.





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


 
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo!
TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
_______________________________________________
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