Sorry. I didn't realize it was private; I hadn't bothered to read the
email header. As for "I'm not going to respond publically", I assumed this
meant that you were not going to respond to the details of my post -- i.e.,
my individual points. So, I assumed the post I got was the post you *were*
publically posting. Anyhow, I did not mean to break your privacy, so I do
apologize for having done so. I'm not sure why you want to keep the
discussion secret, though. You really don't need to give me the "last
word". I am more interested at this point with finding anyone else on the
list who would like to discuss the science / philosophy issue further, and
keeping the posts private is somewhat counter to that purpose.
That being said, this response is going to public, since yours was as well.
I don't want the leave the issue dangling, just in case anyone else has
been following this and would like to continue it. At any rate, your
response was also public, so I hope I'm not violating any of your privacy
needs this time by responding in kind.
>That, along with the dogmatic, arrogant
>and demanding attitude displayed in this post and the one I replied to in
>private convince me that you are not interested in hearing about your own
>misconceptions, but in forcing me to acknowledge what you think are mine.
But I said really explicitly that I do want to hear about my
misconceptions! This was not meant sarcastically. I showed you what I
thought were *your* misconceptions so that you knew where I was coming
from. I also said really explicitly that my point was not to "bust your
chops" or annoy you, but only to flesh-out a vital issue... but still you
seem to have taken my post as an insult.
As for dogmatism, arrogance, demanding attitude, etc.... well, I'm sorry
you took it that way. I have opinions on this issue; strong ones. If that
makes me come across as arrogant, well, sorry. Maybe I *am* arrogant, I
dunno. But as for dogmatism, I must protest. I am willing to accept that
I am wrong about something, *if* I have the details and they are plausible.
In your last post, you didnt' give details; you said, "you are wrong,
maybe you'll figure it out someday". I don't think you expected me to
change my mind in response to that, did you?
>That is why I chose not to try to explain them to you. I tried to end the
>discussion as a gentleman, in private, by pointing out that I believed you
>were wrong without trying to pass judgement on you as a person, then
>explaining my basic position so that you understood it. Your insistence at
>making this public has forced me to respond in a way that I would not have
>prefered.
Kevin, I did not mean to make public what you meant to be private. For
that matter, I have no idea why you wanted to take it private. It's an
interesting issue, it's relevant to the list, and it's not as though it's
degenerated to a Mastropaolo-esque level. (Admittedly, though, it might be
getting close. :)
>But now I have no choice. I will not respond to you publicly as
>long as you make demands and dogmatically assert the rightness of your
>position to the exclusion of mine.
I see; so, I am allowed to have this conversation as long as I don't
contradict your assertions, or ask for substantiation of them? What?!
Would you let *me*, or anyone else, get away with a demand like that?
And again, what is with "dogmatically"? I said several times that I was
willing to accept your views, only you had to make them more clear to me;
and where I did criticize your views, I did so based on arguments, not in a
"you are just wrong, period" sense. The only thing I can think of is that
you took some of my comments in my last email as sarcasm (the parts where I
asked you to show me my misconceptions in more detail). Let me assure you
that they were not intended as such, although I do understand why you'd
take them that way. (Text-only communication is notoriously ambiguous.)
>I had the knowledge to recognize your
>misconceptions and tried to point them out to you.
Look at this from my perspective. Suppose I said to you that I am wise in
the ways of philosophy, and therefore I recognize your misconceptions about
philosophy... only I am not going to show you why they are misconceptions.
You would call me arrogant and dogmatic for saying that -- and you'd be
right. See what I mean?
>You rejected them simply
>because they do not conform to what you believe is true.
No, I rejected them based on reasons, which I laid out pretty carefully.
Did my arguments not make sense? Were they not substantial? Okay, fine,
then just say so, and I can either come to see where this is so, or remedy
my arguments appropriately. I cannot think of a single time so far that I
have said "you are wrong, because it contradicts my beliefs". I *have*
said "your argument here is unconvincing, because it hinges on several
fallacious inferences". But that is not dogmatism. That is a
counterargument. If simply disagreeing with you, and giving reasons why,
is "dogmatic", then I don't think there's anything I could do that you
*wouldn't* consider dogmatic -- save perhaps uncritically accepting your
assertions as truth.
>But that's why
>they are misconceptions; they are not true and you do not recognize what is
>true. Since I do not have the expertise to explain why they are
>misconceptions, I will have to rely on others to that.
If you have the expertise to know what my misconceptions are, how is it
that you can't explain why they are misconceptions...? This is not an
insult. I really don't get you here. More importantly, what am I to do
with your assertion here? If I said to you "Kevin, you are wrong, but I
don't have the expertise to explain why", how would you respond? You would
say "so you can't back up your position" and probably "then your position
is just dogmatism". Why is it that, if I ever say you are wrong, I am
dogmatic and arrogant, but you are allowed to say I am wrong with impunity?
>As for your views on
>science vs. philosophy as alternative ways to understand the universe,
>nothing that philosophy can say about the universe can be tested against the
>universe to see if it is true.
Testability is a criterion of science, but not a unique criterion.
Suppose, for example, we are talking about Berkeley's ideal monism. A
philosopher could make an argument like this: "if Berkeley's view were
true, and all reality was just in the mind of God, then we would not
observe evil in the universe. After all, God cannot have evil in his mind.
But we do observe evil in the universe. Therefore, the universe is not
all just the mind of God." Philosophers, like scientists, test
suppositions against known facts.
Moreover, note that testability itself cannot be shown to be or not be a
necessary condition for knowledge -- scientific knowledge, or otherwise --
without philosophical (specifically epistemic) study. The very *issue* you
raise in trying to invalidate philosophy *is* philosophy!
>As such, philosophy may have alot to say
>about what the universe is like, but since we can never know whether any of
>it is true, it is all irrelevant.
Why can't we ever know if the results of philosophy are true? Philosophy,
like science, can take known facts and test the reality of its results
based upon them.
>Only science can tell us anything
>significant about what the universe is, what it is made of, what governs it,
>how it developed, or even how it originated, because only science can test
>its claims against the universe itself to see if they are true.
Again, I think you're in error here about testability being unique to
science. Philosophers test the truth of their ideas against known facts
all the time.
>All your
>hand-waving about the way that philosophy has influenced science (something
>I have never denied or contested) or about the philosophical origins of
>science (something else I have never denied or contesated) or about
>arguments from pure reason (whether you believe they are possible or not) or
>about philosophical rationality can change this fundamental fact.
I see, so science is alone concerned with testability. That is just a
fact, and nothing I can say will change that. And *I'm* the dogmatic one?
Yes, my tone is getting irritable now. I'm sorry about that. But I don't
like it being suggested that I am the unreasonable sort of person you seem
to think I am, and then have the very irrationality I am accused of thrown
in my face as an argument. All I can ask here is that you read your own
words from the perspective of someone with a differing viewpoint. If *I*
used this kind of rhetoric, would *you* be convinced? If not, you can
probably see why I have a problem with it.
As for my "hand-waving", my point there was to note that science itself,
historically and epistemically, is based on philosophy. Therefore, if you
wish to invalidate philosophy as useless crap which tells us nothing about
reality, you are by implication similarly invalidating science.
Differently put, science takes as axiomatic certain essential
presuppositions (e.g., "there is an external reality, and observation puts
us in contact with it"). Science itself cannot even theoretically prove
these presuppositions; they are philosophical ideas. So, if philosophy is
unable to tell us anything about reality, then these philosophical ideas
must just be arbitrary garbage. The very foundations of science, according
to your view, would have nothing to do with reality; and therefore, science
would not have anything to with reality either.
Just so you don't think I'm being "dogmatic", I'll make my argument really
clear by putting it in point form (it is a reductio ad absurdum type
argument -- i.e., reducing your claims to contradiction):
1. You claim that science is an objective means of arriving at truth.
2. In order for science to be an objective means of arriving at truth, the
foundations of science must be objective and true.
3. The foundations of science are philosophical ideas.
4. You claim that philosophical ideas are arbitrary, and not concerned with
objective truth.
5. Hence, the foundations of science are not objective and true.
6. And therefore, science is not an objective means of arriving at truth.
(Now, note that I am not really saying that science is not an objective
means of arriving at truth. I am saying that that view is the logical
consequence of your assertion that philosophy is not an objective means of
arriving at truth.)
>And as
>long as this fundamental fact is true, I will continue to maintain the
>superiority of science over philosophy as the way to understand the
>universe.
I don't suppose you'd be interested in actually discussing *whether* "this
fundamental fact is true".
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/