Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose to James
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:36:45 -0500


Hi Steve,

In terms of "adequately represent the 'real'" what would be criteria for
adequacy?

Howard



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose to
James


> James/All
> I have no desire or even interest in defending Popper from charges that
> as a social-democrat he was broadly in favor of liberalism and
> social-democracy and proposed these ideological positions as preferable
> to Western Marxism, Eastern Marxisms and and of course Stalinism.  These
> are givens consequently as a result your response is missing the point.
> I also notice that his argument that Scientists must be more responsible
> and accountable for their decisions about what they research is ignored.
> What is interesting with Popper is whether his understanding of
> knowledge, science and the idea of testability gives us a better set of
> tools than the dominant understandings of scientific knowledge generation.
>
> To get to the more interesting discussion that is possible about science
> and knowledge - It is worth noting that in the 1979 book 'The
> Possibility of Naturalism' Bhaskar spends a great deal of time
> critiquing Popper but next to no time critiquing Kuhn, who by this time
> had arguably become the most important philosopher of science. Why did
> Bhaskar, in his 'Transcendental Realism' arguments and proposal miss the
> important target ? Even by 1979 it was obvious, to the lay person that
> Kuhn was by far the most most important figure in the philosophy of
> science and that a realist must address Kuhn's neo-conventionalist
> approach to knowledge generation. I would argue for instance that
> Lyotard's classic text The Postmodern Condition could not have been
> written without the underpinning that Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
> Revolutions provides. It's not until much later (I think around 1989/90)
> that Bhaskar lumps together Kuhn and Popper as 'super-idealists' and
> seems to smooth out all the differences to generate what appears to be a
> 'target' against which CR can be generated. Perhaps the underlying
> question that is worrying me is whether a 'scientific realism' and thus
> a 'transcendtal realism' is both possible and acceptable given that
> within the sciences it is clear that scientific knowledge is socially
> constructed out of competing theories in ways which practically
> guarantee that the dominant theory will not adequately represent how
> things work. How then can we justify the argument that 'science is a
> realism'  (which is how it was originally presented to me) when it can
> never adequately represent the 'real'.
>
> A simple example - the dominant theories of genetics state that each
> individual human subject has a single DNA structure,  it can be changed
> but on the whole it is singular - this is not true nor is it even an
> adequate phantasy of the complexities of DNA/RNA in 'life'.  To clarify
> it is known that human subjects can exist with multiple DNA structures,
> the implications of which are multiple but two immediately spring to the
> forground: 1) the faith placed in DNA as a means of recognising and
> managing a single human subject is misplaced and 2) The claims that DNA
> has been realistically represented or even understood are false.
>
> It does however support Dawkins much abused and misunderstood view that
> "living beings are the means for the reproduction of DNA..." (laughs).
>
> regards
> steve
>
>
>
>
> James Daly wrote:
>
> >Hi Steve
> >
> >"a social-democrat like Popper could hardly be expected to agree with
> >Marx and Hegel" -- in fact they were prepared to annihilate the planet
> >to to defend capitalism and save the world from communism. Perhaps he
> >should have called for social democrats "to adopt a version of the
> >Hippocratic Oath to restrain their propensity for harm."
> >
> >One example of Popper's dishonest "scholarship" is his misquoting Marx
> >on a crucial issue as saying he wished to discover the "laws of
> >society", whereas Marx said "the laws of modern society", i.e.
> >capitalism.
> >
> >One can be a Cold Warrior without being paid for it, but acquiring the
> >status of a Cold War manual certainly helps a book's sales, as it did
> >Isaiah Berlin's.
> >
> >" '... to make science game-like and democratic as possible...' ".
> >Science is not game like or democratic: games theory is just bourgeois
> >ideology; "democracy" is capitalism.
> >
> >"Popper's version of science is essentially dialectical...". Popper
> >was always ferociously anti-dialectical, and his denial of being a
> >positivist turned mainly on the philosophically minor grounds of being
> >a falsificationist instead of a verificationist, though in addition he
> >also implausibly said metaphysical statements could become testable
> >hypotheses.
> >
> >"... pitting one hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed
> >issue. This goes back to Athens, the model being Socrates model of
> >questioning, constructed in the 18th/19th [this should presumably be
> >12th/13th] centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
> >disputation' ". This is a frequently repeated but unconvincing
> >ontogenesis of dialectic, which I think began with Plato's Parmenidean
> >and Heraclides inheritance, and his practice of hierarchical
> >classification.
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >James
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:36 AM
> >Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and other
> >fun stuff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Mervyn
> >>
> >>Within the philosophy of science perhaps the biggest argument of the
> >>century is between Kuhn notable 'The structure of`scientific
> >>revolutions' and Popper -  like most  people on the left I also
> >>
> >>
> >assumed
> >
> >
> >>that the below rationale was broadly correct - Fuller has done a
> >>remarkably good job of throwing this presumption into question.
> >>
> >>I am not concerned to defend Popper regarding the Open Society or
> >>
> >>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>Poverty of Historicism, after all a social-democrat like Popper
> >>
> >>
> >could
> >
> >
> >>hardly be expected to agree with Marx and Hegel,  rather the
> >>
> >>
> >interest I
> >
> >
> >>have is in Fuller's attempt to recover the philosophy of 'science'
> >>
> >>
> >and
> >
> >
> >>'knowledge' from the predominance of the relativist Kuhn's paradigm
> >>shifts, 'where knowledge is adequate to its objects'. The argument
> >>
> >>
> >goes
> >
> >
> >>that Popper '...took seriously both that science aspires to
> >>
> >>
> >universal
> >
> >
> >>knowledge and that scientists - our representatives in this project
> >>
> >>
> >are
> >
> >
> >>inherently flawed and biased agents. The result was to make  science
> >>game-like and democratic as possible...' But to clarify this
> >>
> >>
> >Popper's
> >
> >
> >>version of science is essentially dialectical pitting one
> >>hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed issue. This goes
> >>
> >>
> >back
> >
> >
> >>to Athens, the model being Socrates model of questioning,
> >>
> >>
> >constructed in
> >
> >
> >>the 18th/19th centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
> >>disputation', from this derives the German dialectical tradition and
> >>
> >>
> >of
> >
> >
> >>course Hegel and Marx.  An example of this dispute in a non-science
> >>
> >>
> >area
> >
> >
> >>is the Popper/Adorno dispute over positivism which when looked at
> >>
> >>
> >shows
> >
> >
> >>perhaps rather typically that they are remarkably similar... both
> >>anti-positivists, both dialectical thinkers, one a marxist the other
> >>
> >>
> >a
> >
> >
> >>social-democratic liberal.
> >>
> >>A single issue it seems to me throws the outright rejection into
> >>question:  "At the height of the Vietnam War, Karl Popper called for
> >>scientists to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath to restrain
> >>
> >>
> >their
> >
> >
> >>propensity for harm."
> >>
> >>regards
> >>sdv
> >>
> >>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't know about Kuhn, but anybody of intellectual integrity with
> >>>
> >>>
> >a
> >
> >
> >>>reasonable familiarity with Hegel and Marx who reads The Open
> >>>
> >>>
> >Society
> >
> >
> >>>and its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism could scarcely doubt
> >>>
> >>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>Popper was a cold war warrior. He is not only sly, he is dishonest,
> >>>deliberately suppressing key words and omitting context in quotes
> >>>
> >>>
> >to
> >
> >
> >>>suit his cold warrior distortions and travesties. His
> >>>
> >>>
> >characteristic
> >
> >
> >>>method is to set up a scarecrow and demolish it as if it were the
> >>>
> >>>
> >real
> >
> >
> >>>thing. To spring to his defence on this issue in the current
> >>>
> >>>
> >context can
> >
> >
> >>>only mean to defend the totalitarian commercialism (Collier) that
> >>>
> >>>
> >Popper
> >
> >
> >>>himself promoted and which is now being imposed on the world by all
> >>>force necessary. (The very skies over London have been emptied for
> >>>
> >>>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>>god of totalitarian commercialism to arrive as I type this...)
> >>>
> >>>Mervyn
> >>>
> >>>steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk writes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>James
> >>>>
> >>>>The fifties cold warrior labelling of Popper has been challenged
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >in very
> >
> >
> >>>>interesting ways by Steve Fuller just recently in his book Kuhn vs
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >Popper.
> >
> >
> >>>>As Fuller points out it is Kuhn who is in the pay of the coldwar
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >warriors...
> >
> >
> >>>>(this is not to disagree or comment on the thrust of the below -
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >merely to
> >
> >
> >>>>spring to the defence of popper...)
> >>>>
> >>>>regards
> >>>>sdv
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi Carroll
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your punchline was strong -- that the purpose of reading Plato's
> >>>>>Republic was to understand The Enemy.  But, only one? Why is his
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >name
> >
> >
> >>>>>on Lenin's tomb?  Your approach calls to mind the Fifties cold
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >warrior
> >
> >
> >>>>>Sir Karl Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, after which
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >George
> >
> >
> >>>>>Soros named his foundation. Slyly, Sir Karl manages to suggest
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>>>Plato's target is workers who must be kept in their place,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >whereas his
> >
> >
> >>>>>real target (see the Gorgias) is the unscrupulous Nietzschean
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >rich who
> >
> >
> >>>>>want to exploit and rule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is nearly always forgotten that the society of Plato's first
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >choice
> >
> >
> >>>>>is a communist one, and that the rest of the argument is about a
> >>>>>second-best society. And even the second-best society is not a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >class
> >
> >
> >>>>>society in Marx's sense, in that the philosopher rulers do not
> >>>>>appropriate the surplus, but live a frugal life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I suppose the jury is out on whether Plato meant by "gennaion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >pseudos"
> >
> >
> >>>>>Big or Noble Lie, or both, but the myth of noble and base metals
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >in the
> >
> >
> >>>>>soul is an answer to the problem of legitimising the rule of
> >>>>>reason, and defending it against the power of wealth. Lenin had
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>>>>same problem. It's quite a problem!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>James
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
> >>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> >>
> >>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> >>
> >>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
> >>multipart/alternative
> >>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >>  text/html
> >>---
> >>
> >>
> >>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---