Subject: RE: BHA: Voloshinov etc
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:29:58 -0500
From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu>


Hi Steve,

Actually, I don't feel confused (but, of course, I might not be honest enough to admit my confusion).  I don't believe scientists are so much concerned about proving that theorized entities exist as they are in trying to figure out what's going on.  They typically assume the existence of a real world, but they are not ontologists, trying to prove the existence either of a real world or of some part of it.  Not only do they typically assume the real world, they also assume that this world is at least partially intelligible.

In your follow-up post, you asked me which realist terms did I think you were smuggling in.  For me, it isn't primarily a question of realist or anti-realist "terms."  You seem to be a realist insofar as you assume the existence of real scientists engaging in real activities.  You think realists misinterpret those activities, which you say are "primarily" ideological.  I claim that your assertion implies the realistic assumption that those activities are intelligible, and that this intelligibility is expressed by calling the "ideological."

I don't feel confused about this, nor do I think I am being dishonest, refusing to admit what, deep down inside, I really know.  I do not, however, expect you to agree with my assertion than you are smuggling in realist assumptions.  To do so would be inconsistent with your anti-realism.

Best regards,

Dick 

-----Original Message-----
From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:03 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc


Hi Dick

Sorry that I am causing unnecessary confusion (inevitable really I 
suppose) - a scientist's activity is of course 'real' in that it is an 
actually existing activity, a scientist who claims that a given activity 
is  working on proving that theorised entities exist (i.e. a gay gene) 
is carrying out a real activity however this is always predominantly an 
ideological activity. And that they will never cross the divide into the 
Real. (spelt with a capital R deliberately to differentiate it ...)

An anti-realist position should presumes before anything else that a 
theorised entity is an ideological construct first.  (Bush's recent 
decision to send more americans to the moon may be science but it is 
best understood ideologically).

I do not have sufficient evidence to prove it as yet, but I assume at 
the moment that supporters of scientific realism are misleading 
themselves by presuming that because science claims it is dealing with 
reality - that it is.

How does a supporter of philosophical realism address the 
proposition/fact that science is primarily an ideological activity ?

regards
steve



Moodey, Richard W wrote:

>Hi Steve,
>
>You seem to me to smuggle realist assumptions into your anti-realism.  
>You accuse realists of "refusing to accept that science is always 
>predominantly an ideological activity."  By doing this, you seem to be 
>claiming that (1) the activities of scientistis are real, (2) 
>anti-realists know these activities as they "really" are -- 
>"ideological", (3) realists also know that scientists' activities are 
>really "ideological," too, but refuse to accept what they know.  It is 
>based upon these assumptions about reality that you further claim that 
>conventionalists are more honest than realists.
>
>Dick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:45 AM
>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc
>
>
>Hi Dick
>
>Whilst I would normally use different 'terms' - I would not necessarily
>reject that position. The necessary caveat would be that within the 
>structure of the arguiment - the tendency of realism to refuse to accept 
>that science is always predominantly an  ideological activity, 
>preferring instead to argue that it is addressing and explaining  actual 
>existing causal factors (i.e. DNA and Genetic structures, High Energy 
>physics, Intelligence etc) means that by default 'realism'  is more 
>ideologically bound than anti-realist positions.
>
>But nonetheless I am quite preparted to accept that a conventionalist
>position is ideological in the same way, but believe it is simply more 
>honest about recognising that causal factors are, even in there reality 
>(i.e. Atoms, DNA or Electrons) predominantly ideological structures and 
>do not or cannot exist in the Real.
>
>An aspect of this that I recently discussed is to compare and contrast
>the relationship between the Mouse and the Cat as given by St Augustine 
>and a (realist) scientific evolutionist. St Augustine  explained the 
>mouse running from the cat as being an intentionalist phenomena the 
>mouse percieves the cat as its enemy, consequently the mouse runs. St 
>Augustine accepts that the mouse is adequately intelligent to understand 
>that the cat is a threat and thus it knows to run. The evolutionist 
>would explain the phenomena in terms on - do  not ask why the mouse 
>runs, rather understand that individuals and species that do not cope 
>with their enemies no longer exist. (As an anti-realist I believe both 
>can be considrered as perfectly true, and both have ideological 
>consequences.)  I would however claim that the logic can be applied to 
>the existence of scientific theories for a theories success is not 
>miraculous,  for a theory is born into a world of competition and 
>conflict - only a successful theory can survive. But note that I do not 
>imagine that there success can be understood because they are actually 
>related to regularities in nature - for they are not rather they are 
>related to the currently existing social - purely ideological in other 
>words...
>
>regards
>steve
>
>Moodey, Richard W wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Steve,
>>
>>I want to make sure that I get this right.  You regard your
>>anti-realist assertions, as well as our realist assertions, as essentially ideological.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:00 AM
>>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc
>>
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>>A difficult set of questions in an email form... and obviously I 
>>cannot give a comprehensive justification of an anti-realist position. 
>>However basically I would state that a more accurate understanding is 
>>that the Real is impossible to grasp or even encounter. That is to say 
>>that as a human being what we consider to be reality is merely 
>>'ideological' and completely infected by the social - and that whilst 
>>we can in science be seen to be addressing the empirical real because 
>>our sciences can never be seen to avoid the ideological impacts of the 
>>social they cannot be said to be addressing the Real. The critical 
>>difference here is that I am not arguing that the human sciences are 
>>ideological, this is obvious, but rather that all sciences are. (To 
>>construct a rough model  then what we looking at is Human-Subject - 
>>empirical real - Real -  as opposed to an understanding that implies 
>>that in some sense a science can directly interact with the Real). The 
>>question of whether the 'Real' can actually be said to exist, which I 
>>think is implicit in your question, well I have severe doubts that it 
>>makes any sense to make such a claim.
>>
>>My philosophical and cultural training, including the philosophy of 
>>science and scientific work has always been on the anti-humanist and 
>>non-realist side. I agree that as a consequence my understanding of 
>>what constitutes realism is probably strange if considered at from a 
>>realists position. But then when I read "...there is a need for 
>>concrete scientific utopianizing by socialist economists, architects 
>>and human scientists in general..."  I wince just as I do when some 
>>idiot scientist claims that a gay gene exists. I do understand that 
>>Bhaskar is not addressing those areas of science that I am most 
>>interested in understanding anti-realistically.  But from my position 
>>whenever a scientist speaks in utopian terms it is necessary to 
>>closely read the ideology underlying the statement and  immediately  
>>work to reject it and I see no reason why Bhaskar should be an exception to this axiom.
>>If the discourses of economics, psychology and architecture are to be 
>>regarded as sciences then they cannot be excepted from this and 
>>consequently Bhaskar is just wrong
>>
>>To clarify then the underlying reason why it is wrong to be a 
>>philosophical realist in science is because science is predominantly 
>>an ideological activity. I suspect that to be a philosophical realist 
>>in relation to science is to accept science as being the best method 
>>available to interact with the 'Real' (which is impossible) - as in 
>>earlier days philosophers accepted religious myths as doing this.
>>Science is not as scientists often claim about the expansion of 'human 
>>knowledge' but about  fulfilling an ideological vision. From Newton and 
>>later Max Planck through 20th C high energy physics and into psychology 
>>and genetics - it is an ideological activity. This is not say that in 
>>the last instance the real does not exist, but it is only in the last 
>>instance that can never arrive (to mutate a phrase from Althussar).  The 
>>Real will always be hidden behind the reality that is presented as as 
>>true. An individual theory may be presented with all the relativity of 
>>'probability' and 'experimental proofs ' but Science presents itself 
>>overall as a Realism, as the best means available to interact with the 
>>world. Consequently then a proper philosophical relationship to science 
>>is to severely question whether this is what science is doing, it is not 
>>to blithely accept that science is a realism. Richard Dawkins (who in  
>>most circumstances I'd support...) explains "There is a fashionable 
>>salon philosophy called cultural relativism which holds, in its extreme 
>>form, that science has no more claim to truth than tribal myth...." 
>>(after some spurious discuission about the moon he goes on "....Show me 
>>a cultural relativist at 30 thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. 
>>Airplanes  built according to scientific principles work...." For a 
>>philosopher this is questionable as he is confusing science and makng 
>>things (aka engineering) but Dawkins then makes the more interesting 
>>cardinal error of assuming that science in general represents truth 
>>because "Scientific beliefs supported by evidence and they get 
>>results".   There is remarkably little evidence to support this 
>>statement, for  the majority of scientific beliefs are mere ideological 
>>statements made to support a given society at a given social-historical 
>>moment.
>>
>>I realise that I have schematically  only responded to points 1 and 2 
>>- I will respond to 3,4,5 somewhat less polemically...
>>
>>rough notes for a wednesday morning...
>>
>>regards
>>steve
>>
>>jamie morgan wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Steve, you're notion of realism seems curious - perhaps this is a 
>>>failure caused by the nature of debate in this forum but: 1.are you a 
>>>'realist' in relation to the world-universe-outside your self? 2. If 
>>>so why is it misguided to be realist about science - is science about 
>>>something? Is this an ontological issue for philosophical dissection 
>>>in addition to whatever else we discuss about it? This matter of 
>>>ontology is what links people interested in CR, not their various 
>>>political persuasions and other commitments that are pursued in terms 
>>>of forms of realism. 3. What is the link in your notion of 
>>>linguistics or semiotics between representing and constituting? 4. 
>>>What would you choose to defend from Saussurian linguistics? What is 
>>>plausible about it for you? 5. Is there no defencible form of realist 
>>>semiotics or linguistics? What does realist lingusitics mean to you 
>>>and why must it be a blackhole?
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:53 PM
>>>Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Tobin/all
>>>>
>>>>Being a 'realist' (in relation to science) is whilst misguided but 
>>>>probably understandable, but being anti-psychoanalysis as well as 
>>>>anti-(saussurian style) linguistics - quite probably we'd come to 
>>>>serious intellectual blows over such reactionary positions...
>>>>
>>>>The statement rather proves the point I was trying to make - to make 
>>>>your materialist linguistic theory dependent on a singular marxist 
>>>>position is to guarantee that the 'linguistics' will fail. To make 
>>>>it dependent on realism, dialectics is to reproduce the theoretical 
>>>>black hole I was condemnning Volshinov for. Curious that you mention 
>>>>Lacan who does precisely that in his adoption of Jakobson's 
>>>>linguistics, creating the unavoidable error of making his 
>>>>psychoanalysis dependent on a theoretically questionable science and 
>>>>ideologically bound science...
>>>>
>>>>yours laughing...
>>>>
>>>>steve
>>>>
>>>>Tobin Nellhaus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, gotcha.  I think the glitch is in what one means by "marxist." 
>>>>>If it refers only to Marx's analysis of capitalism, then yes, 
>>>>>founding a theory
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>linguistics on that would be, hm, clunky at the *very* best.  If on 
>>>>>the other hand one understands "marxist" as meaning a mode of 
>>>>>analysis (e.g. historical materialism, realism, dialectics, etc) 
>>>>>without any necessary direct connection to economics -- in other 
>>>>>words the philosophical underpinnings -- then I think a marxist 
>>>>>philosophy of language is intelligible.  That's the approach that 
>>>>>Voloshinov/Bakhtin was taking, I believe, as the title of his book 
>>>>>indicates; and it's what I usually have
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>mind by "marxist," given that I don't work on economics or 
>>>>>political
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>As for Saussure, there are other reasons than CR or marxism for 
>>>>>rejecting him, but it's not an issue I can pursue right now (as I 
>>>>>have an article
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>due
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>in less than a week, eek!).  You might check out the poet and 
>>>>>essayist
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Goodman.  FWIW, I have and always have had a visceral antipathy to
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Saussure,
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>and also Lacan and Richard Schechner (who you've probably never
>>>>>heard
>>>>>of, and just as well).  But that may be because I have a visceral and 
>>>>>quite possibly erotic relationship with language.  Saussure will 
>>>>>never
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Cheers, T.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Tobin Nellhaus
>>>>>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>>>>>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S.
>>>>>Peirce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>   --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>   --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>
>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>
>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/html
>>---
>>
>>
>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>
>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>multipart/alternative
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  text/html
>---
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>  
>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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


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