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

36260RE: [existlist] Re: And She Who Was Second Shall be First

Expand Messages
  • Robert Keyes
    Sep 14, 2005
      My Point was not really Science but the Scientific Method. Of which can be
      Applied to the Social and Even the Subjective... Of course at Each step
      certainty becomes less even if applied strictly. Just because your not
      studying Physical Science does not mean deduction or Induction should be
      eliminated from the thinking process. Assumptions still (even in the
      subjective) be carefully selected. You do the best you can with the problem
      at hand...
      I know of no other way to analyze other than using science Rules... (even in
      subjective land)...

      -----Original Message-----
      From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Jeffrey Tate
      Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:37 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: And She Who Was Second Shall be First

      Robert (and everyone),

      Habermas's insights are relevant here:

      Each of us constructs 3 subtypes of lifeworlds: the objective (things),
      the social (interpersonal forces), and the subjective (the individual's
      unique mind).

      The objective world is the one we all share, perceive and agree upon
      most clearly. The social, less so; the subjective, much less so.

      Science limits its investigations to the objective world. In this way,
      it keeps things clean(er) and simple(r) for itself. If it studies the
      social world, it does so by reifying social forces into "things" to be
      measured. Ditto if it studies the subjective world.

      Other areas of study don't have the luxury of limiting investigations to
      the objective world. They study the social and subjective worlds
      exclusively (e.g., psychoanalysis, law, art). They stay closer to the
      raw, un-reified experience and try to make sense of it.

      In each of these subtypes of lifeworlds--the objective, the social, the
      subjective--what passes for "knowledge" is what experts in non-dogmatic,
      non-coercive discussions ("communicative action" per Habermas) agree
      upon. Science is no different in this respect. It isn't a better or
      higher form of knowledge. Science is just easier to agree upon because
      it limits itself to the objective world.

      Progress in knowledge is real. Within each lifeworld subtype, more and
      more information is integrated and agreed upon (paradigm shifts don't
      always throw out the baby with the bathwater--and the bathwater is
      better understood with each advance).

      Philosophy at its best synthesizes (incomplete) knowledge from all three
      subtypes of the lifeworld into an overall understanding of human


      -----Original Message-----
      From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Robert Keyes
      Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1:17 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: And She Who Was Second Shall be First

      I was reading this and was loving it until I realized I must comment.
      went off course imho)
      Bob.. Comments Below..

      -----Original Message-----
      From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      Of Exist List Moderator
      Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:23 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: And She Who Was Second Shall be First

      I am not certain of whom wrote what here... but, I thought it worthy of

      On Sep 08, 2005, at 7:27, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "trop_de_simones"
      > <trop_de_simones@y...> wrote:

      > Serious science is not pragmatic in method. In fact pragmatism is a
      > decision making process that requires only beliefs, facts to it are
      > accidental but actually unnecessary artifacts. This whole assessment
      > a popular culture influenced cry baby crock. Science is the only way
      > "understand" the world at all.

      Reading a text on theatre, proving my course schedule in the humanities
      is nothing like a course load in the sciences, I came across an article
      citing Scientific American. Seriously. The author was using science not
      merely as metaphor, but rather as some manner of "proof" that his
      theories were correct because parallels existed in science.

      The liberal arts seem intent on using *real* science to prove
      themselves. This is like the move linguists and critical theorists made
      in the 1960s and 70s, rushing to apply science as the grand metaphor
      for everything.

      Science isn't about higher-level understanding.

      [Robert Keyes] The sentence above though me into a tiz... I have not
      further Yet as to your point. The more deeply you Understand Science, (
      it is all over our heads, admit it guys (I don't say guys lightly, I
      not met what I consider to be completely(by my approximation) ration
      here-). At best you might get a deep understanding (by todays scale) in
      field (and when I mean deep I mean into the equations) at best. But
      from our short comings as ape-men, (as a Martian I would have to group
      humans with other hominids, just a bit smarter-of course the Martians
      into context our random 13 billion year journey. )
      Science is the Only Window that is not broken (with this I mean Huge
      as to provability).

      It cannot provide
      ethics or purpose.

      [Robert Keyes] Yes it Can....
      Given... We are Here by Random Chance as Current Science States (from
      Subatomic Matter to us- ).
      Conclusion: We can solve this anyway we want... Possibilities...
      1. Humanism... this is what is really running the world...By any measure
      world drifts towards it... I will cite examples.
      a. Republicans are Kool with Gay Civil Unions in the USA. This is a Huge
      b. Radical Islam is actually on the retreat no matter what their leaders
      say.. All countries have signed up against terrorism.. That means
      Islamic Nuts will not even be liked in their own country. Now I am not
      talking about a few tribes nobody wants to spend the gas to find.
      c. People care more now about animals and their feelings than they used
      to... ( after all they are our great great.... grandparents) why let
      suffer abuse. I cannot legally beat my dog in the usa. They used to do
      for fun in the old days... (with the same iq brains mind you)

      Conclusion: Our Nature is Good...and we can extrapolate Pain on other
      creatures (even Humans) (Looking at a Huge time frame here- We used to
      our daughters(its why there laws against it- there would not be if it
      not a problem ) and Kill for Fun...We have come along way...(never said
      road was straight).

      What science can do is provide facts and
      methodologies for testing theories. However, the soft "sciences" have
      tried so desperately to borrow "science" that they have actually lost
      their way. A great quote I read last week stated that the social work
      the Pillsbury Doughboy of the social sciences -- so subjective that
      even pretending otherwise was nonsense.

      [Robert Keyes] OK since science cannot figure it out , Imaginary
      can, oh ya, lets try that...

      Of course, once the soft sciences had to admit they were subjective,
      they became "ethnography" and "memetics" to avoid having to prove
      anything at all. Then these "theorists" declares all sciences
      subjective. This response was defensive, and incredibly naive.

      [Robert Keyes] What Science is, is Defined... (by science def of
      There are different levels of knowing anything... It is all on a scale
      probability. One who uses science facts to speculate is better than one
      adheres to religious dogma, thus the science speculation carries more
      weight- i.e. more likely (probable).(again science's rules as the law of
      land-some humor)

      Existentialists, phenomenologists, etc, admit that experiences and
      perceptions might not be accurate.

      [Robert Keyes] What a silly proposition. Accurate in comparison to what?
      some objective entity will evaluate 2 brains thoughts as to correctness
      ? By
      what standard is the comparison made. Is Evolutionary advantage the goal
      Don't say your "Kind" dying off is an Option... You would not be
      suicidal in
      deciding correctness would you.(for your tribe).

      In fact, what we think we know is
      often flawed.

      [Robert Keyes] It is always flawed !!!!!!!!!! geez....

      However, existentialism and most Continental schools do
      not reject scientific exploration. What we must do is avoid letting
      philosophers pretend towards a scientific "approach" when that does not
      seem either possible or desirable.

      [Robert Keyes] Seem is the key word.... It is possible science provides
      only way to know anything other than fantasy... Consider this slight

      "Logic" and "proof" in philosophy are not scientific and we deceive
      ourselves if we start imagining such universals exist.

      [Robert Keyes] True Universals May not exist, but that may not be the
      way to skin the CAT. Philosophy based on the strict adherence to proof
      is a
      Philosophy. One that will Not take the Leap as you seem to want to do (
      have) Some humor....again..

      That was, in
      fact, a primary point of the Continental movements: there might not be
      any absolutes in philosophy.

      [Robert Keyes] Like that is a Crisis, they found it in Nature, Deal with
      Bob... Just a few thoughts as I read it, time to play chess....

      - C. S. Wyatt
      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
      that I shall be.
      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



      * Visit your group "existlist
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.

      * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic