Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The problem

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events contradiction, and so on. The
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms
      of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events contradiction,
      and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
      entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host of
      rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to make
      a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
      criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
      making the criticism a pointless pursuit.

      For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
      intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was led
      to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
      prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and others
      engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any intention
      whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.

      The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
      could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands for
      'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
      provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow about
      scientism.

      Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
      whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
      science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
      philosophy would stand.

      That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works. Criticism
      is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that aren't
      made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
      need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.

      Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
      intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
      engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
      indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
      it in good faith, when actually that is not true.
    • Bruno Marchal
      ... A good method consists in changing the vocabulary from time to time. It prevents the useless vocabulary discussions, and many other rhetorical tricks. It
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:02, hibbsa wrote:

        >
        > The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms
        > forms
        > of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events
        > contradiction,
        > and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
        > entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host
        > of
        > rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to
        > make
        > a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
        > criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
        > making the criticism a pointless pursuit.
        >
        > For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
        > intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was
        > led
        > to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
        > prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and
        > others
        > engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any
        > intention
        > whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.
        >
        > The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
        > could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands
        > for
        > 'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
        > provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow
        > about
        > scientism.
        >
        > Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
        > whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
        > science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
        > philosophy would stand.
        >
        > That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works.
        > Criticism
        > is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that
        > aren't
        > made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
        > need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.
        >
        > Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
        > intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
        > engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
        > indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
        > it in good faith, when actually that is not true.
        >

        A good method consists in changing the vocabulary from time to time.
        It prevents the useless vocabulary discussions, and many other
        rhetorical tricks. It helps keeping the scientific attitude on the
        genuine issues.
        The problem is that there is a sort of vindication of abandoning rigor
        in the philosophical domain, which matches the institutional lack of
        rigor in theology that we live since a very long time. People defends
        fields, not idea. Science is till prehistorical, and diplomats are
        still eliminated, and inter-disciplinarily research is still a pious
        wish.

        I think that acceptance of criticism, like free-exam, might be a
        protagorean virtue. Those who defend publicly such virtues put
        themselves in a way preventing them to be able to apply them. Perhaps.

        Bruno





        >
        >

        http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Alan
        ... What issue are you talking about as far as the debate with Push is concerned? And what arguments were presented that you found satisfactory? Alan
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

          > The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms
          > of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events contradiction,
          > and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
          > entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host of
          > rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to make
          > a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
          > criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
          > making the criticism a pointless pursuit.
          >
          > For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
          > intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was led
          > to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
          > prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and others
          > engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any intention
          > whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.
          >
          > The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
          > could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands for
          > 'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
          > provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow about
          > scientism.
          >
          > Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
          > whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
          > science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
          > philosophy would stand.
          >
          > That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works. Criticism
          > is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that aren't
          > made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
          > need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.
          >
          > Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
          > intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
          > engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
          > indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
          > it in good faith, when actually that is not true.

          What issue are you talking about as far as the debate with Push is concerned? And what arguments were presented that you found satisfactory?

          Alan
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.