FWIW, I bought What Is This Thing Called Science? by A.F. Chalmers today.

Hurgh. I just threw up in my mouth a little…memories of B.Sc. Honours…I also have a copy, which needless to say I haven’t read since.

This isn’t complaint about the content, mind you! I think it is pretty thorough. I happen to disagree with a great deal of it, though this is also not something that can be held against the book. But the course that went with it…two straight hours of this is enough to turn your brain to mush.

I repeat: hurgh…

Hmmm. Why is a good example not around when you need it?! Hugo: 50c asseblief mielaanie?

I’ll have to work on that. Personally I think it might be best to have examples of how modernism/modernity works, or doesn’t work, in the relational sphere. Sketching out how it connects with philosophies or relational strategies leading to the Second World War might be useful, but Godwin’s Law remains a pain, as well as trying to “water down” that example to “everyday life”.

I’ve had, for more than a year I bet, in my queue of posts to write, a post about modernism and the Borg from Star Trek. Such examples might be useful to explain ideas, but also doesn’t completely succeed at connecting them with “our reality” and using it to motivate our particular choice of communicational/relational strategies.

When it comes to those very keen on science, I remain a fan of trying to explain “there’s the science stuff for which you use scientific epistemologies, and then there’s other stuff for which that just doesn’t really work, because it aint science”.

FWIW, I bought What Is This Thing Called Science? by A.F. Chalmers today. Someone was selling one, as he had been shipped two copies. As a book on the philosophy of science, with a good reputation, and an interesting table of contents and back cover, I think it even touches on the problems with “positivism”. I look forward to sharing some of the thoughts in it. I must just upgrade my time management…

Then again, I’d be quite curious if there were any “stalkers” intent on gate-crashing a real-world meet. If there are, I’d enjoy meeting them / being gate-crashed. (Though if it is a regular occurance, probably just the first couple of times)

Comment 22 is…problematic.

Yes, coffee will be great. We could even discuss meteorology melissas flat white is my big vice.
Just let me know when!

I would actually like to learn some more about your experiences with fundemenatlism etc. over a cup of fine coffee sometime?

Hmmm…not much to tell, actually. The only major experiences I have had have been second hand, through student reaction to the first-year biology course I help out with, as well as anecdotal stuff. Nothing direct at all.

I think my prime worry/interaction with fundamentalism is in the aspects where it interferes (strong word, but justified, in my opinion) with science teaching or understanding of science. This is kind of a broken record with me; but I think comment 22 is full justification for why I feel this way…

The coffee idea sounds good, though. I can’t this week, bit busy after the conference. But next week is fine.

I’m now looking to make some connections to this broader understanding of “knowledge”, feeling it resonates with my broader use of “truth”. Cultural truths…

And Kenneth is talking mostly about scientific knowledge and “facts”, which I consider a subset of “truth”.

Good point! I started seeing that from Kenneth’s last post. I think we are getting a good feel for each other’s concerns now. I’m enjoying the direction the conversation is going. Seems like there is a tangible mutual respect. We can all learn a lot like this!

“Once again I want to try and make the point that not all knowledge is of an empirical nature.”

Can you provide me with an example? It would make what you are saying more concrete to me.

Hmmm. Why is a good example not around when you need it?! Hugo: 50c asseblief mielaanie?

I guess intuition and the whole realm of unconscious/emotional knowledge is at least hard to relate in empirical terms. I guess that’s part of the reason I throw the “relational” word around so much. Generally I would say Psychology would have some interesting answers to this question. Will think about this some more; If I’m not mistaken I still owe you a good example from a previous comment? ugh. I suck at examples.

OK. I don’t think it is universally applicable. Just applicable over a very large spectrum of human individuals/societies. There are cases where I can imagine other epistemologies would be more suitable.

Here I am inclined to want to agree with you, but reservedly, alluding again to the previous comment where I tried to make the point the modernisation causes certain needs that the thinking/concerns/questions behind Modernity will best adress. (Forgive me for Umbrella-ing Modernisation and Modernity here. I realise they are not the same thing, but they do correlate in the point I am trying to make)

Ugh…well, for what it’s worth, I don’t see it this way…I would prefer something be more right/less right within a given context. Thinking in absolutes is generally Not a Good Thing.

Great remark, thankyou Kenneth. It proves my suspicion that I might have pigeonholed your conception of rationality.

Thankyou for the generally positive comment, I have learned a lot from it. If you’re game; I would actually like to learn some more about your experiences with fundemenatlism etc. over a cup of fine coffee sometime? I think the lack of paralinguistic communication we suffer in blogging would not ideally suit such conversations!

BENDUL is BAD BEN’s new alias; hence Kenneth-your last post was adressed at the same person; not 2 people

Hehehehe…I did realise this, but only after posting. Apologies.

Once again I want to try and make the point that not all knowledge is of an empirical nature.

Can you provide me with an example? It would make what you are saying more concrete to me.

I just don’t see it as universally applicable as I sometimes get the impression you do.

OK. I don’t think it is universally applicable. Just applicable over a very large spectrum of human individuals/societies. There are cases where I can imagine other epistemologies would be more suitable.

Concerning Rationalism I think we have a semantic issue: My suspicion is that you have a more “developed” conception that has already resolved the problematic relationship between the modernistic universal idea of rationalism (which I must admit; my thought seems to be stuck on) and the culturally conditioned aspect of what is considered rational.

Hmmm…I’d like to think about this one for a bit…

The Modernist has to choose how to respond to such plurality; and unfortunately has in Imperialistic Right/Wrong fashion which sometimes yielded infamously intolerant results such as Nazism.

Ugh…well, for what it’s worth, I don’t see it this way…I would prefer something be more right/less right within a given context. Thinking in absolutes is generally Not a Good Thing.

That we realise just because we won’t make the same mistakes as people did in the past, doesn’t mean we won’t make mistakes again.

On this I fully agree…I don’t know a single rationalist who wouldn’t!

And Kenneth is talking mostly about scientific knowledge and “facts”, which I consider a subset of “truth”.

Just me throwing another 5c coin into the pot (since we don’t have 2c anymore).

I trust that previous comment will both serve as a light answer to your post-war question and an explanation of my inadequacy to give you answers proper…

BENDUL is BAD BEN’s new alias; hence Kenneth-your last post was adressed at the same person; not 2 people

Some of us have mostly abandoned ways of searching for knowledge that don’t yield reliable, testable answers, and with good reason.

Once again I want to try and make the point that not all knowledge is of an empirical nature. I agree with almost everything you say kenneth; I just don’t see it as universally applicable as I sometimes get the impression you do.

Concerning Rationalism I think we have a semantic issue: My suspicion is that you have a more “developed” conception that has already resolved the problematic relationship between the modernistic universal idea of rationalism (which I must admit; my thought seems to be stuck on) and the culturally conditioned aspect of what is considered rational.

It is because of this that the modernist discovers not just one, unifying rationale behind behaviour and knowledge formation; but many. Eg. Certain attitudes of behaviour and ideas of “wisdom” make sense to the japanese traditionalist; whereas the western mind wobbles when confronted therewith.

The Modernist has to choose how to respond to such plurality; and unfortunately has in Imperialistic Right/Wrong fashion which sometimes yielded infamously intolerant results such as Nazism. To which you will (rightly!) reply, we learn from our mistakes.

This Plurality problematizes rationalism as a means for relational knowledge. The Cultural theory lobby proposes a radically unstable cultural relationship where we are part of “imagined communities”; assuming that because we look the same, dress the same, speak the same etc. as for instance our fellow afrikaners that we share rationalistic epistemological views consistently. However when we scrutinize communities (sociologically, anthropologically, philosophically, psychologically) their internal discrepancies become apparent.

This is the central thesis of post-colonial cultural studies (badly phrased by an underachiever: for this reason; If you would like some more ideas feel free to contact someone from the visual arts department. they are seriously horny for interdepartmental action! )

I take it your meaning here is why do only certain people get to decide the answers to those questions…please tell me if I am wrong.

What I think you might be missing here is that: which questions are asked and how is just as much a part of the eventual answers (epistemologies/ideologies blah blah) that are institutionalised as the answers to those questions. What I am proposing is not anti-institutionalism, but self-reflective critique: That we realise just because we won’t make the same mistakes as people did in the past, doesn’t mean we won’t make mistakes again.