File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0003, message 73


From: "Andrew Brown" <A.N.Brown-AT-uel.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:08:52 GMT0BST
Subject: RE: BHA: Re: More on TD/ID


Colin, Tobin,

So I succeed only in irritating you. My apologies. I'll go through 
Colin's points step by step, but recognise that it may be best to forget 
it for now.

> >I am, of course, very well aware of RB's position. And also of your 
> >own view on 'learning to live' with fallibilism. 
> 
> Oh really! And by what magic key have you come to be so certain of my
> position? I have to admit, if ever I was tempted by postmodernism then it
> is positions such as this.

1. 'learning to live' with fallibilism is not a position unique to you.
2. of all the people on this planet I do have a better chance to know 
your ideas than most since you and i have been on this list since its 
inception; and i enjoyed greatly your daily contributions before your 
'lurking phase'. (I thought I had learnt from them, but that seems to be 
up for dispute)

> 
> As for my view it is 
> >perfectly able to deal with the problem of error. Error occurs through 
> >failing to fathom the *interconnection* of objects. 
> 
> Objects Andy? Interconnections? But we fathom them already, on your account
> surely?. Interconncetions presumably are objects of a kind, all of which
> you think are present to thought. 

The term 'interconnection' implies somethings that are interconnected. 
These are 'objects', or 'aspects'.  

So, is the understanding simply a matter
> of rearranging the deckchairs on the ship called certainty? We know
> everything, what we need to do is understand it.

We occupy a small portion of an infinite universe fundamentally 
constituted by internally related objects. We know very little of these 
necessary interconnections. What we do know is expressed in the 
language of the sciences, viz. physical laws, chemical elements and 
other stuff which are universal through the infinitely extended universe. 
Yes we are certain of the few aspects we come across. Because they 
are internally related to the rest of the universe one can go so far as to 
say that 'implicit' in our knowledge of them is knowledge of the 
universe [this is the ground for science - DCR's notion of 'absence' 
does indeed deny this implicit ground (or the need for it)]. But partial 
aspects of a whole can be very misleading as to their true 
interconnections within the whole. Thus our 'hypotheses' 
fundamentally consist, in my view, in attempts to fathom the 
interconnections of objectively (certainly) present aspects with 
eachother and with the rest of the universe. They fundamentally fail to 
fathom the interconnections fully. That is the inherent fallibility. 

But we do not just sit there 'rearranging the deck chairs' as you put it. 
This is because the best way to break out of partialty if to gain 
knowledge of more and more aspects. Such knowledge is gained 
throught human labour (including sceintific practice).  


 Well, that's problematic
> since understanding could be an object, so we already know it. Positivism
> doesn't come close to such arrogance. I see no fallibilism whatsoever, but
> then maybe we are with Alice and when you use a word it means exactly what
> you want it to mean?

Well this argument turns on your move from my claim that there are 
no objects about which we know knothing to a different claim, which 
I do not make, that we know everything about all objects. See below.

> 
> 
> Indeed, I argue that 
> >it is the only way to uphold fallibilism truly. RBs way, and your own, 
> >and 'common sense' (or at least 'common sense' to academic 
> >discussions) collpases to Humean scepticism on my argument [this is 
> >indeed an *argument*, not a silly assertion, as Tobin seems to imply]
> 
> Well, I'm sure I'm intruigued to hear the arguments, as opposed to the mere
> assertion of them....

I was dissapointed that neither you nor Tobin quoted or dealt with the 
paragraph of my previous post that I flagged as 'my point of 
argument'. But, by the time this came up, you had both clearly had 
enough anyway.

> >> 
> 
> >> You disagree that there might be real objects of which we know nothing?
> >
> >Yes I do disagree. 

> 
> Do you wish to add "mea culpa" here? Ruth, are you listening?
> 
> >I am certain they are material; 
> 
> What? You have denied they exist independent of being known...To be know is
> to be material; that's an interesting spin on the old Bishop.

I know something about them. I know that they are material. (in 
space, time, motion - not an outrageous claim surely). To be is to be 
material. This is materialism of a certain dialectical sort. (arguably RBs 
is also a type of materialist dialectics). I don't know everything about 
them.

> 
> i [RB would agree in some senses 
> >but would insists there are and could be other things about which we 
> >know nothing 
> 
> Yes Andy, RB would but you have said you don't. I am confused. Do you or do
> you not think that there might be objects of which we know nothing. Play
> the cards you have declared, not the ones you wish you had...

I mentioned RB because he too, in an important sense, claims to 
know something about everything in our universe. This is his 
philosophical ontology. Moreover, he shows how knowing something 
about everything does NOT mean knowing everything about 
everything (it does not give us a scientific ontology), which is why I am 
surprised you pin that criticism upon my view. I differ from RB in that 
(1) I deny that there could be lots of other universes outside of our 
own universe; (2) I do not doubt my own philsophy in the manner that 
Bhaskar does. (i.e in terms of the non-identity of thought and being). 

> 
> - and in any case he must argue that this entire 
> >philosophical ontology could be completely wrong, given epistemic 
> >relativity]. 
> 
> Yes, he can and does, but you can't because there is nothing that exists
> which is not known.

I don't. And I'm glad about this since it prevents a slide to scepticism 
and dogmatism - please have a look at the bit of my last post where I 
argued for this assertion (I argued that RB cannot sustain judgemental 
rationalism); you can completely ignore my own positive views. My 
position is that nothing exists about which we know *absolutely 
nothing*. This is very different from your characterisation of it above.


> >
> >> Really, so we know everything?
> >
> >No. Obviously.
> 
> Sorry, I do have an infuriating tendency (so my colleagues and PhD students
> tell me) to conceptual clarity. If we don't know everything, then there are
> some  things we don't know, Can you square this circle with your 
claim that
> there are no objects independent of thought (don't try the interconnections
> argument since interconnection will surely be objects outside of a purely
> atomistic ontology). Did Tobin say daft? Well let's not get into that one...

As above, we know something about everything. But not everything 
about everything. 


Andy


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005