From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:01:23 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: BHA: Voloshinov etc


Dick

I asked about the smuggling in of terms - to  check both the rationale I was
using but also to ensure that we could address the differences in
understanding.  Do you think, as I read the below that 'realism' and
'intelligibility' are as linked as you state below ?

Because I would assume that as most science is neither about 'finding out
what s going on'  not intelligible' I can't see how you can maintain that as
part of a realist attitude to science.

regards
steve

> 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 ---





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