From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Follow-up Conquest of Abundance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:29:19 -0500



A little more about Feyerabend and “The Conquest of Abundance”.

Eric wrote:

hugh  said:
>I’m still reading "Conquest of Abundance". I had previously read "Against
Method" and "Farewell to Reason" - didn't keep notes. This was years ago.

Eric wrote:

>I have to admit I am something of a newcomer to Feyerabend. My first
impression is that his >overall position is very similar to Richard Rorty.
Both seem to espouse anti-foundational >views of science and philosophy with
a loosely pragmatic view of culture that emphasizes >individual creativity.
I am stretching slightly here but it appears John Stuart Mill is the
>spiritual grandfather of both of them .

Yes, there are similarities, but  CA goes back to the Greeks and  reminds me
of philosophy as pursuit of wisdom, the abundance of experiences that give
lives joy and  meaning in manifold activities, and relationships.

>I also have to admit something in me resists this position, but it would
take some time to explain. How do you see Feyerabend

>> Hugh:  "CA" contains updated (early '90's) material about advances in
genetics,  microbiology,  particle physics. Of course a lot has happened in
these fields lately.

>Eric:  If you could talk about this in greater detail I would like to hear
more. Although I >recognize that science occurs in a social and historical
matrix, it also seems that this >particular work is very important and that
it has great value. I suppose I am something >of a pragmatic realist in this
regard. Does Feyerabend value these cultural activities of >contemporary
science or does he address them only to attempt to debunk them?

There was more debunking in Feyerabend’s  books mentioned above.  He was
impatient with  pretension and myth which tended to represent Science and
the Scientific Method as consistent, logical, infallible.

As for recent developments, I think of the following:

Molecular biology, mapping the genome, the creation of atomic  particles
from pure energy, the struggle for a Theory of Everything,  “it-from-bit”,
or everything physical is "information”,  theories of complexity.

There is little social-historical context  for these items because they are
so recent.   I know little of details, but when I read that  an ordinary
human cell contains about 2000 proteins, and somewhere else I read that a
super-computer under construction by IBM would require a year to simulate
the “folding” of  one protein, which in the body, is folded in an instant, I
am impressed by complexity.

Eric wrote:
> "Against Method" pointed out problems of assuming an all-embracing
"scientific  method",and that is still a basic theme.

>Here is a quote for F's "Three Dialogues on Knowledge":

>"Knowledge is a complex matter, it is different in different areas and so
the best answer >to 'What is knowledge?' is a list."

>This reminds me a little of Alasdair MacIntyre who deconstructs
contemporary morality >in "After Virtue" in order to return to an
Aristotlean concept of virtue. He points out >that virtue for the Greeks is
'arete' which is best described as an excellence of any kind. >Hence, like
knowledge for Feyerabend, virtue is also diverse. As MacIntyre points out:
>"just because of the multiplicity of human practices and the consequent
multiplicity of >goods in the pursuit of which the virtues may be
exercised - goods will often be >contingently incompatible and will
therefore make rival claims upon our allegiance - >conflict will not spring
solely from flaws in human character."

I would say goods are goods, people are people, and  people make claims and
choices.  Abundance means there are more choices.  Scientific abstractions
are useful, and produce fantastic results, but for most people they are not
“goods” per se.

>Hugh : There is quite a bit of discussion of "reality", whatever that may
be, and > how in 500 B.C. philosophers believed in invisible gods and
goddesses.  Twenty-five centuries later, many  philosphers don't believe in
invisible gods and goddesses, but do believe in invisible particles. Eric
wrote:

>>Here is an interesting quote from Quine that relates to this topic:  "For
my part I do, >>qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in
Homer's god; and I consider it a >>scientific error to believe otherwise.
But in point of epistemological footing the >>physical objects and the gods
differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of >>entities enter our
conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is
epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious
that other >>myths as a device for working  a manageable structure into the
flux of experience.

The above seems to be  a reasonable  point of view.    Let me add some other
points and background, then give a few quotes  from  “Conquest of Abundance”
without further comment.

It  has been said that the most important thing one can ask about a person
is  “What does s/he take for granted?

And, as Lyotard said in “ Le Differend”, it is a task of the philosopher to
elucidate his presuppositions.

So, let’s take a look at the 2001 landscape, ignore for a while the history
of  ideas, and set up some markers.

Instead of traditional stories of  the creation of homo sapiens, take the
viewpoint of modern science .   This  viewpoint will not prevent a religious
onlooker from concluding that the earliest origin discovered by scientific
inquiry, including  atomic particles, waves, radiation, gravitational,
nuclear and electro-magnetic forces, and  big bangs, was initiated by a
divine creator.

The popular scientific phrase is “self-organization”,  but this can, like
self-reference, be an  infinite series of mirrors -  the religious person
will insist that the last mirror  represents  a divine creator.

Think of mankind as one of millions of living species remaining after other
millions of species became  extinct.

A primate requiring  a specific  environment for life support,  air, water,
food, control of  body temperature, parental care in infancy and childhood.
A primate endowed with body, brain and central nervous system  which enable
perception,  cognition, emotion.

A primate involved with natural phenomena  as subject/actor/perceiver of
objects and events, developing  memory,  learning, experience.   Thus, this
"being" develops  autonomy, a sense of self, and the belief systems, the
mental and physical attributes and techniques essential to survive.

A species which is capable of speech, writing, mathematics, art. the
languages of  communication, the key to social bonds that link overlapping
life-times, create one’s social ”being“, and ultimately, participation
within, and conformance to, social institutions.

A human individual who participates in creating the belief systems and value
systems  underlying  the  concept of a future.  One who has knowledge of
means and ends, the ability to plan future actions, goals, values, to be
achieved,  and their meanings for the life one lives.

Other species have their own own modes of species-being,  Thus we may wonder
what it is “like“ to have the being, of  some other organism, for example, a
bat, a whale, a tree which has lived 3000 years.

We apply our minds  in attempts to understand the bio-world interacting with
our senses, and  as well as the underlying world of physics, revealed  in
part by our senses, and in part to  our cognitive faculties.

Thus we infer and explain invisible entities, conceive theories, calculate,
measure , give meaning to the invisible,  using math,  probability, lab
instruments.

And finally, a few quotes from  “The Conquest of Abundance”:

“Grand subdivisions, such as the subdivision real/unreal are thus much too
simplistic to capture the complexities of our world.   There are many
different types of events and “reality” is best attributed to an event
together with a type, not absolutely”

“Each entity behaves in a complex and characteristic way which, though
conforming to a pattern, constantly reveals new and  surprising features and
thus cannot be captured in  a formula; it affects and is affected by other
entities and processes constituting a rich and varied universe.  In such a
universe the problem is not what is “real” and what is not - queries like
these don’t even count as genuine questions.  The problem is what occurs, in
what connection, who was, is, or could be misled by the event and how...”

“ON THE OTHER HAND we find the most varied groups engaged in a “search for
reality”  Such a search makes sense only if what is real is assumed to be
hidden, not manifest.”

“The individuals and groups I am concerned with refused to take this
abundance at face value.  They denied that the world was as rich, knowledge
as complex, and behavior as free as the commonsense, the crafts, and the
religious beliefs of their time seemed to imply”

...”For how can what is real and not manifest be discovered, or proved, by
means of what is manifest and not real?  How can an objective reality that
is not given be explored with the help of appearances (thoughts,
perceptions, memories) that are given, but are idiosyncratic and deceptive?”

And here is a footnote  in which Feyerabend quotes  Schrodinger”
...”Physics consists not merely of atomic research, science not merely of
physics, and life not merely of science.  The purpose of atomic research is
to fit our experiences from this field into the rest of our thought; but the
rest of our thought, as far as it has to do with the external world, moves
in space and time”