tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5331930965171336639..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Is Stanley Fish smarter than Richard Dawkins?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88083227875832133992009-11-12T14:16:49.330-05:002009-11-12T14:16:49.330-05:00You're quite right about "prejudice"...You're quite right about "prejudice" -- it was the first word that popped into my mind, but what I really mean is "bias" in a broad sense -- that is, anything that pushes us away from objectivity.<br /><br />But that wasn't really the focus of my comment anyway. My main point is that, at least as I understand it, "subjectivity" is something linked to individuals, rather than to groups of individuals. People often say that the mechanisms of science help reduce the biases of individual scientists. But what about structural biases that result from interactions between larger systems? "Emergent" biases?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40557286834504627082009-11-12T08:21:13.484-05:002009-11-12T08:21:13.484-05:00Scott, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sub...Scott, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Subjectivity is not necessarily a result of prejudice, unless by prejudice one means that people cannot avoid having certain views and understandings of the world that are shaped in part by their experiences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76788202816715206802009-11-11T17:48:16.536-05:002009-11-11T17:48:16.536-05:00"Ungovernable level of subjectivity" -- ..."Ungovernable level of subjectivity" -- that's an interesting way of putting it. I take "subjectivity" to mean something like "the prejudices of individuals." What about prejudices that have nothing to do with "subjectivity"? Pressures against objectivity that arise at the level of the web, rather than at the level of the individual?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23670642776065560422009-11-11T15:44:53.721-05:002009-11-11T15:44:53.721-05:00Close. Except that concepts, ideas and empirical e...Close. Except that concepts, ideas and empirical evidence do require human investigators. The difference with the postmodernist position is that this requirement does not imply an ungovernable level of subjectivity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11650539318288451262009-11-11T14:10:27.117-05:002009-11-11T14:10:27.117-05:00Ok. Then would I be correctly interpreting you if ...Ok. Then would I be correctly interpreting you if I rephrased your above post this way?<br /><br />Philosophers of Science talk about a web of concepts, ideas, and empirical evidence that exist independently of the networks of human investigators that use them.<br /><br />(Apologies for the deletion -- I need a copy editor!)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40976501675684966192009-11-11T14:05:29.531-05:002009-11-11T14:05:29.531-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27800015111467466322009-11-10T21:32:49.531-05:002009-11-10T21:32:49.531-05:00I think that makes a lot of sense, and that it doe...I think that makes a lot of sense, and that it does a good job of conveying the way scientific inquiry really works -- at least given my own limited knowledge.<br /><br />But it still doesn't quite address my question, which I'll admit I haven't expressed very clearly. I'll try again. <br /><br />I think a lot of people who talk about the social construction of knowledge (of any kind) tend to talk about "networks" or "webs" of individuals who collectively contribute to and construct said knowledge. So what is the difference between the account of scientific inquiry you just gave and a social constructivist model of scientific knowledge that (I am perhaps unreasonably assuming) Fish would be inclined to adopt?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63549650105476065552009-11-10T07:08:26.394-05:002009-11-10T07:08:26.394-05:00Scott,
sorry, my reference to a web of knowledge ...Scott,<br /><br />sorry, my reference to a web of knowledge was much too quick, and I can't get into details now, perhaps I should do a separate post about it. But the basic idea is popular in philosophy of science, and it is that scientific theories are interconnected and reinforce each other; moreover, even if a particular "thread" of the web needs to be replaced because of new evidence, this does not disrupt the entire edifice. It's a better conception of science than the metaphor of an "edifice" of knowledge, since in the latter case the obvious (and misleading) question is: what's the foundation of the edifice?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91562593306715205832009-11-09T17:27:27.287-05:002009-11-09T17:27:27.287-05:00I'll admit that I did not, at first! That'...I'll admit that I did not, at first! That's why I deleted the first version of my comment.<br /><br />Still, I don't see the connection between the "web of knowledge" concept and objective truth. Aren't such "webs of knowledge" precisely what people talk about when they talk about the social construction of scientific knowledge?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31892100665914211622009-11-09T12:57:44.572-05:002009-11-09T12:57:44.572-05:00Scott,
well, what is vitriol to one reader is sha...Scott,<br /><br />well, what is vitriol to one reader is sharp (and well founded) criticism to the author...<br /><br />As for including a false dichotomy in the title, surely you got the joke, right?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40118701284088455532009-11-09T11:29:32.511-05:002009-11-09T11:29:32.511-05:00I don't read a lot of Fish, but I have to agre...I don't read a lot of Fish, but I have to agree with gatotkatja; I see here a lot of vitriol and not a lot of substantive argument. Specifically, I don't see any attempt to explain why the existence of a scientific "web of knowledge" implies the existence of objective truth. I'm not saying objective truth doesn't exist--I'm just saying that you seem to have skipped a step in your argument.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83494328056583922442009-11-09T11:11:50.483-05:002009-11-09T11:11:50.483-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16158049729186556402009-05-21T21:05:49.844-04:002009-05-21T21:05:49.844-04:00M. Tully, I agree with you almost whole-heartedly....M. Tully, I agree with you almost whole-heartedly. But I must say that post-modernists do BEGIN with interesting ideas, as Massimo I think said. Then they are faced with a choice: They could investigate it scientifically and philosophically. Instead they take the other choice and run right off a cliff.Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44686794555430393132009-05-21T16:55:00.958-04:002009-05-21T16:55:00.958-04:00M. Tully pretty much nailed the lid down on that c...M. Tully pretty much nailed the lid down on that coffin.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41750646886305528412009-05-21T00:13:09.227-04:002009-05-21T00:13:09.227-04:00Oh my goodness.
Why have we not reached the point...Oh my goodness.<br /><br />Why have we not reached the point where we say, "Oh, you're making a post-modernist argument. You obviously don't have a clue, let me help you?"<br /><br />Do you want to disarm a Po-Mo? Ask her to make a testable prediction. You say it's all narrative? Well, my narrative can split atoms to make electricity and put a man-made probe in orbit around a world millions of miles away. It can reduce human suffering by using the germ theory of disease.<br /><br />And the post-modernists have achieved what... (the sound you hear in the background are crickets)? <br />It's O.K., say it out loud, the Po-Mo world view has produced the great discovery that, "My opinion about a painting is just as good as yours (although modern neuroscience is even discrediting that one)."<br /><br />If that is your argument, good for you, only don't say it on a computer, that took solid state physics and quantum electrodynamics to achieve. However, if you want to paint it on the wall of a cave, have at it.<br /><br />Post-modernism is a fully discredited, unreasonable position. I think it is about time we start calling it what it is.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8094311051747177512009-05-20T18:25:16.905-04:002009-05-20T18:25:16.905-04:00The problem is that it is impossible to assign "au...The problem is that it is impossible to assign "authorship" to the columns appearing under the name "Stanley Fish." Literary theory tells us that Fish is a fool who does not understood the Foucaultian implications of his own realization of the complex relationship between facts and theories.Fixed Carbonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06321707907871138659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39194168596170914762009-05-20T17:14:39.016-04:002009-05-20T17:14:39.016-04:00Massimo, the way you create that distance can, I t...Massimo, the way you create that distance can, I think, be viewed from the outside as creating two groups (if not more) out of the atheists/freethinkers/whatever other relevant label. I am just curious if that is your intention, or just an accident? Would it not be possible to create the image of dissenting individuals within a cohesive whole? This is mostly just voicing my thoughts on the matter without doing the hardwork myself right now.Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28864808503359659102009-05-20T14:19:05.702-04:002009-05-20T14:19:05.702-04:00Joseph, someone.or.another,
well, Sheldon put it ...Joseph, someone.or.another,<br /><br />well, Sheldon put it very well. I disagree in tone with Dawkins/Hitchens, and I do think that tone is important in intellectual discussions and social controversies. <br /><br />I also really don't think that religious people are "stupid" (at least, not most of them!), nor do I think that all types of religious upbringing amount to "child abuse" (though some do).<br /><br />Finally, my disagreements with Dawkins on what science can or cannot claim, and on whether his arguments are philosophical rather than scientific are, I think, substantial.<br /><br />That said, yes, I still agree with 90% of the substance, but I think that 10% is important enough to distant myself from the group.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81388016954531952552009-05-20T01:52:15.073-04:002009-05-20T01:52:15.073-04:00Joseph,
I wasn't arguing that Massimo or anybody ...Joseph,<br /><br />I wasn't arguing that Massimo or anybody else has "the right" to criticize based on style, because of course they do, thats obvious.<br /><br />What I was saying is that these issues of style are legitimate and relevant criticisms of some of the "new atheists".<br /><br />We as atheist all agree that there probably isn't a God. After we agree on that premise there is alot to disagree about concerning how we are to relate to the rest of society that does believe that a God exists. And that's where I find myself in agreement with things Massimo criticizes about some of the "new atheists".<br /><br />And by the way, one of those criticisms of Dawkins, that he is too scientistic on the God question; whether God exists or not is philosophical question, is much more than an issue of style.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52498140609878767522009-05-19T23:27:53.391-04:002009-05-19T23:27:53.391-04:00Massimo, why is there such a difference between yo...Massimo, why is there such a difference between yourself and these other atheist writers?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04191449585002263476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73874579867233736182009-05-19T20:45:09.545-04:002009-05-19T20:45:09.545-04:00Perspicio, I don't quite think that follows by the...Perspicio, I don't quite think that follows by the same standard. . . <br /><br />As an atheist, I have nothing wrong with the "strategizing," since there are issues in our culture that do have a tendency to polarize groups into "sides" that have an stake in "winning," even if the members of each side change from issue to issue. I do have a problem when the talk of strategy and goals gets too close to the present, where it becomes almost utopian in nature.<br /><br />But on the main topic. . . It is sad to see Fish (or anyone) for that matter have to resort to such tactics. I like what you said, OB.Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207094936361302208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82106972016458266562009-05-19T20:05:09.294-04:002009-05-19T20:05:09.294-04:00By that standard, hardline conservatives shouldn't...By that standard, hardline conservatives shouldn't criticize Ted Kaczynski, since he was very outspoken against liberalism.<br /><br />Dreck.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4804932252037874462009-05-19T18:33:28.980-04:002009-05-19T18:33:28.980-04:00Massimo, Sheldon,
Yes, of course Pigliucci has "...Massimo, Sheldon,<br /><br />Yes, of course Pigliucci has "right" to criticize them on their style. It's just banal, and skirts the border between relevance and irrelevance. <br /><br />Here's what I mean in the most precise sense. Pigliucci, in fact, agrees with the new atheists a lot. Not 75% here - I mean on the vast majority of issues. But he doesn't like their tone, and so he doesn't want to associate himself with them. So what does he do? He criticizes their tone, then criticizes a few non-central points of contention, and declares himself to not inhabit the same ideological plane as Dawkins et al. <br /><br />Pigliucci is, in the grand scheme of things, part of the atheist/secular humanist/bright/(insert neologism here) movement. He shouldn't try to overplay the differences between himself and his more abrasive counterparts.Joseph Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002838588050900281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45073915962403458842009-05-19T17:45:37.522-04:002009-05-19T17:45:37.522-04:00Joseph said:
"I find tons of interesting stuff her...Joseph said:<br />"I find tons of interesting stuff here. My entire point is that your criticisms of the "new atheists" seem to be mostly directed at their style."<br /><br />Joseph,<br />Seems to me that the "style" of argumentation are legitimate grounds for criticism. And of course Massimo has criticized Dawkins and Hitchens on philosophical grounds as well i.e. they are naive.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56159374269380545722009-05-19T16:51:00.000-04:002009-05-19T16:51:00.000-04:00Joseph,
yes, concerted strategizing is best left ...Joseph,<br /><br />yes, concerted strategizing is best left to the religious right. However, I do have a right to disagree with the tone (Hitchens, Dawkins) and content (Dawkins, Harris) of the new atheist writings. I consider Dennett far above the rest of the group, by the way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com