Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:51:02 +0100 From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: [fyi] Baudrillard: The Violence of the Global Shiv, You haven't engaged with my argument or Baudrillard's at all. If you're really not interested in philosophy, social theory, or social science, I think you should take your scientistic dogmas and prejudices elsewhere. It's all in our genes - how illuminating! Mervyn In message <20030523164316.55126.qmail-AT-web21206.mail.yahoo.com>, shiv kumar <iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com> writes >Terrorism has nothing do with 'society's own judgment and penalty'. >There is no society which can keep each and every one content and least >of all the one which indulges in appeasement. > >The problem with social scientists is that, to paraphrase Bourdieu >himself, they like to study in mutual isolation, mutual ignorance, and >mutual contempt. This then is reflected in their analyses, which are >inadequate. In science, there are ultimate causes and proximate causes. >Insofar as ultimate causes are concerned, terrorism can be ascribed to >purely biological mechanisms. Social science stumbles when it comes to >ultimate causes. > >It is astonishing how some realists (?) rubbish ascription of genetic >reasons on ground of reductionism. This is a specious understanding of >reductionism. The fact of the matter is that reductionism and >emergentism go hand in hand. One has to uncover the first layer to go to the second and so on. Thus from a realist perspective, there is a strong >case for biological mechanisms playing their powers and properties out. >They antecede the humans and have autonomous powers and >properties. We only need to think of the hunter gatherer thousands of >years ago, with a spear in his hand. In 2003, instead of the spear, there >are B-52 bombers, Cruise missiles et al. The mechanisms are intact. A >sagacious realist is one who knows that these mechanisms can't be >altered, nor are they easily accessible; they can only be deactivated. For >instance, capitalism has deactivated, in parts of the West, mechanisms >associated with passions, honour, revenge killings, and so on. > >The 'subject' has hitherto been taken for granted, whereas it is precisely >this that 'claims being'. Husserl too had taken the subject for granted. But >these philosophers can't be blamed--science in their times had not >progressed as it has now. The future belongs to science and not >philosophy. The last 500 years of development in both the disciplines is a >testimony to that. Whereas a scientist will rarely (only for embellishment) >make a refrain to men of antiquity, philosophers keep parroting the men >of antiquity. > >The biologists can take heart from the fact that Galileo, Newton, Darwin >were ridiculed by many in their times and all were proven correct. The >Martin Horky's (the one who belittled Galileo) are still there when the >issue of genetics comes up, it is just that they do not know, they are one! > >And when a realist denies the powers and properties of genes, he commits epistemic fallacy in reality as distinct from a text-book. >Superficial basis of incredulity can never be the basis of science. And, if >this be reductionism, so be it. Reductionism is the chief triumph of >science. Every single victory over disease, aetiology, man going to >space are all reductionist. As said, a new interpretation of reductionism >and emergentism is required. We should not be moving with fads, but >think about them. > >Shiv --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005