From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:50:44 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: BHA: Voloshinov etc


Dick

I was understanding that by 'intelligible' we are both unstanding that the
activities of scientists are understandable and with identifiable goals.  (I
suppose I should add that I am assuming that the goals are rational in the
sense of undererstandable and that this does not prevent goals from being
irrational).  For example it seems to me impossible to understand the
activity of the scientists involved in  genetic research or high energy
physics without looking at it through an approach which considers the
activity ideologically.

I suppose then that yes I regard scientific activity as only understandable
if viewed through the  glass of  ideology. In a direct sense this places
scientific entity as I understand it within the framework of science studies
and perhaps I should be honest and admit that the problem with science
studies is the frequent depoliticization of the field.

It would be interesting to know if anyone knows of any science studies work
from a CR perspective...

regards
steve


> Hi Steve,
>
> I say that you treat the activities of scientists as at least partially
> intelligible when you lable these activities is primarily ideological.
> You have a theory of ideology, and claim that it explains most of the
> activities of scientists.  Does that not mean that those activities are
> intelligible in terms of your theory?  Or do you understand me to mean
> something else by "intelligible"?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> 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 ---
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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