File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0003, message 75


From: "Colin Wight" <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: BHA: Re: More on TD/ID
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:27:52 -0000


Andy,


> 1. 'learning to live' with fallibilism is not a position unique to you.

I never suggested it was, I was trying to get everyone to embrace it.

> 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)

Sorry, Andy, this is a ridiculous claim. You know me better than my partner,
better than my close friends, better than my family?  Better than others on
the list who I have conversed with at length off the list? Better than those
I have world with? Really, I think we can do much better than this.

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

Yes, but you know them, and in what sense are interconnections not also
objects?

>
> 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.

Why not, and how do you know all this, and are there no objects in this
infinite universe that we don't know? presumably not for you? All that we
don't know is the interconnections, but how do you know this?

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)].

You are making some rather large moves here. One, even by your own
admission, we don't know the nature of the interconnections, so the claim
about internally related is open to challenge. Some of the interconnection
may not be be internally related. Second, there is no move from the
relatedness of some elements to claims about implicit knowledge of other
elements. The DCR concept of absence is precisely that, the absence of
knowledge, not its presence based on present knowledge.

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.

This is partly what we do in science, but it is not the totality. Let me ask
another question re science. Currently scientists in Britain are concerned
with the object that transmits BSE to humans. They think it is something
called a "prion" (or something like that). Now sorry to get flippant again,
but since you obvioulsy know what it is can you kindly tell them if it is a
prion or not. This will allow them to both know the object (although why
they need to wait until you tell them is a question of some concern, because
surely your metaphysical position would have to be extended to everyone,
since I take it you are not claiming this knowing status just for yourself)
and get on and study those important interconnections. It might also get you
the Nobel prize, no mean feat!

They fundamentally fail to
> fathom the interconnections fully. That is the inherent fallibility.

Not knowing the interconnections is indeed part of the fallibilism, but it
is not the only part, not knowing the objects which are interconnected is
equally part of it. Hence the prion example. Not knowing with absolute
certainty is fallibilism, by the way, not not knowing at all. And since you
are certain that you know all objects you are at least on this issue a
consistent fallibilist. I think there are objects yet to be discovered, I'm
fairly certain of it, but I am not CERTAIN of it.

>
> 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).

Which will include, as History has shown, the discovery of previously
unknown objects. I can't see much need for science as you describe it on
your account, and I do sense a lot of backtracking going on here. Can't we
just admit that you were ill-advised to argue that there are no unknown
objects? You are implicitly appealing to them all of the time.

> >
>

>
> 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.

There is still no argument here. I'm astounded Andy. I know as a list we
can, and should, do better than this. You are merely referring us back to
something both of us thought lacking. Incidentally, if there paragraph is
there as an object, why do I have to be referred back to it, why don't I
know it? Well if it is there, I will, as a good believer in the existence of
things that are not known, I will go see if I can "find" it.

>
> I know something about them. I know that they are material.

But that is not the point. My point is that they can still be not known yet
material. For you this can't be the case. Their materiality is tied to
your/our knowledge of them.

 To be is to be
> material. This is materialism of a certain dialectical sort.

Not everything can be said to be material, surely?

> (arguably RBs
> is also a type of materialist dialectics). I don't know everything about
> them.

There is no way you can reduce CR, or DCR to a form of materialism in this
manner. RB is very clear on this.

>
> I mentioned RB because he too, in an important sense, claims to
> know something about everything in our universe. This is his
> philosophical ontology.

He does not claim to know something about everything. What he claims is that
there is something to know, this is an altogether different proposition.

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).

Sorry, I don't get this latter point. On the former, how do you know there
aren't other universes? Once again you are asserting lots, but providing no
arguments to suuport the assertions.


> >
> > 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.

I can ignore them because like Tobin I haven't seen them. Now of course, you
want to stop the slide by going further than saying that all objects are
known, because now you are saying that there is nothing that exists which is
not known. You are avoiding scepticism in the classical manner ny claiming
to know everything, despite the attempts to deny it. To use your own phrase,
let's be clear about this: I say, that "you can't because there is nothing
that exists which is not known." You reply that: "I'm glad about this since
it prevents a slide to scepticism and dogmatism".

So now you are claiming that everything that exists is known, including the
interconnections presumably. So you are avoiding scepticicm in what is
certainly a novel manner, but not one I am prepared to embrace: become
godlike - claim to know everything that exists. You may well be avoiding
scepticism, but only at the expecse of embracing dogmatism. And this is
dogmatism of a form which is enough to make postmodern scepticism very very
attractive. I have also to add, since Ruth has to a certain extent been
caught up in this debate, that I can also sympathise with some of her
concerns about where some readings of DCR might end up. However, since I
think your position has little relation to DCR I will still disagree with
her.

So we come back to...

> > >> Really, so we know everything?
> > >
> > >No. Obviously.

But you have already said that you are glad to accept the position that
evrything which exists is known. So!

Thanks,




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005