Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:00:16 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie/Marshall


Tobin/all

Thanks - yes of course one can be wrong, internally I would argue for 
example that a concept and theory which failed a test of empirical 
adequacy would be completely unacceptable.  Likewise if a theory cannot 
successfully be used to predict a phenomena, the behavior of it's entity 
then the theory fails what one might call a repeatability test. The 
underlying issue is that an entity must be verifiable. Hence the 
difficulty with virtual entities, theoretical entities which cannot be 
verified yet do have the potential to do untold harm. One of the nice 
things about putting such concepts within the ideological  and 
discursive frameworks that we have available is that we can identify 
there ideological origins.

So then to discuss the case of TB - a medical scientist will typically 
decide that the bacteria exists (in 1882) and that the (a) theory which 
describes and defines the bacillus as something that really exists and 
which will continue to exist as long as the theory and the practices 
that it created is accepted as correctly describing and defining the 
bacillus. But the bacillus appears to me as a theoretical fiction, 
something that exists for as long as the intellectual and theoretical 
structure exists to support it - (not unlike God) for the bacillus to 
exist within a human society we require the social, theoretical and 
intellectual structure which confirms that a person has TB. 

For the theory to be wrong then and another set of practices and 
theories to replace it, requires that - the theory is broken because the 
bacillus is no longer described by the theoretical structure. (there is 
then no difference between the realist and anti-realist understanding 
here - and why should there be ? The processes of change are no 
different. What I suspect is different is that the bacillus is 
considered as much of an arbitrary entity as the theory which defines it 
whereas for a realist the bacillus really does exist until someone 
proves it doesn't...). Of course this does not differentiate the 
anti-realist and realist perspectives, for either side could live with 
the idea that an entity can be changed overnight from theoretical entity 
A to theoretical entity B but and I think it is a big but - when you 
place the entities firmly within an ideological/discursive structure you 
are immediately liberated from the entities themselves which has 
immediate and interesting effects.

Does that begin to answer the 'wrongness' question ?   What's not clear 
to me as I 'think' of the wrongness question is what would be required 
for me to accept that we can interact directly with the Real in a 
non-ideological, non-discursive fashion. 

regards
steve

regards
steve

Tobin Nellhaus wrote:

>Hi Steve--
>
>  
>
>>could you restate the question - i think in the mess of emails I may
>>have missed it...
>>    
>>
>
>I'm certainly willing, but I'm not sure how to state the question any
>better.  You've argued that we have no access to Mt Fuji (etc) only to our
>ideas (theories, ideologies, whatever) of Mt Fuji.  Correct?  So, within the
>structure of your argument, can you ever find yourself wrong?  If so, how is
>error possible?  For example, let's say you're investigating TB: what can
>make you decide that the concept of TB and its etiology is mistaken?
>Likewise for your expectations of a procedure you developed as part of your
>job, or the apparent pool of water on the highway.  (I'm trying to offer a
>range of situations, in case your reply might identify major differences
>among them that trump my view that there's a common basis.)
>
>  
>
>>You are allowed to be abrasive, I'm the person  running the experiment
>>and invading your space, which obviously entails setting myself up as a
>>target, . So go ahead....
>>    
>>
>
>I don't consider your presence an invasion of our space.  This is a public
>list, we've had all sorts of roaring disagreements, and as I said at the
>start of this particular thread, I've sympathized with a number of your
>other viewpoints.  Besides, I doubt you joined the list merely to be a thorn
>in our sides.  (Of course, that's a theory, and I could be wrong.)  What
>bugs me though is when one or both sides keep repeating the same things
>rather than trying to address to other's questions, or persistently
>mischaracterizes the other's view.  (Which admittedly is not to say we all
>have to answer every question raised.)
>
>Regards,
>
>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 ---
>
>  
>


--- 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 ---