Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 05-25-2007, 06:32 AM

it's not that easy. tec.
the albers demonstration is every bit as rational as any other.
it is not a parlor game, not a joke: within the rules that shape it, the results are true--true in that they are formally correct--they violate no rules. a true statement is simply one that violates none of the relevant rules. it's validity is a direct function of the procedures that enable it.
that's it. it doesnt matter is these statements are intuitively evident or not. it doesnt matter if the results violate "common sense"--which is every bit as rule-bound a space/way of thinking as any other.

'common sense' holds no weight. you cant appeal to it and expect that resolves anything. "common sense" is nothing more or less than a social space within which the rule-bound nature of basic operations (perception for example) are naturalized, collapsed into what appears to be given. if you want to think about the relationship between rules/conventions and outputs, it is the last zone of activity that you would want to appeal to. another way: common sense begs all questions.

the point is that arguments against id cannot appeal to some notion of "fact" as if facts are what they are as they are outside of a series of assumptions. a fact is only what it is--is only "true"---BECAUSE there are procedures that enable the meta-operation of verification. and it is entirely possible that the framework within which these procedures operate can turn out to be wrong--think about classical mechanics, think about euclidian geometry (taken as frameworks that adequately describe the experiential world and its regularities or "laws"...that the descriptive power of these frameworks is not total does not mean that they cease to exist--they are functional within certain, highly circumscribed areas of activity/inquiry...)

just to say what should be obvious: this is in NO WAY an argument for a theory as self-evidently goofy as intelligent design.
i dont feel like repeating myself any more.
suffice it to say that this is why i understand the central problem at issue to be political or sociological.
but now things circular grow.
i may need more coffee before i track the circularity of it again.
i may need more coffee to do it than i am capable of drinking.

05-25-2007, 06:32 AM	#89 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's not that easy. tec. the albers demonstration is every bit as rational as any other. it is not a parlor game, not a joke: within the rules that shape it, the results are true--true in that they are formally correct--they violate no rules. a true statement is simply one that violates none of the relevant rules. it's validity is a direct function of the procedures that enable it. that's it. it doesnt matter is these statements are intuitively evident or not. it doesnt matter if the results violate "common sense"--which is every bit as rule-bound a space/way of thinking as any other. 'common sense' holds no weight. you cant appeal to it and expect that resolves anything. "common sense" is nothing more or less than a social space within which the rule-bound nature of basic operations (perception for example) are naturalized, collapsed into what appears to be given. if you want to think about the relationship between rules/conventions and outputs, it is the last zone of activity that you would want to appeal to. another way: common sense begs all questions. the point is that arguments against id cannot appeal to some notion of "fact" as if facts are what they are as they are outside of a series of assumptions. a fact is only what it is--is only "true"---BECAUSE there are procedures that enable the meta-operation of verification. and it is entirely possible that the framework within which these procedures operate can turn out to be wrong--think about classical mechanics, think about euclidian geometry (taken as frameworks that adequately describe the experiential world and its regularities or "laws"...that the descriptive power of these frameworks is not total does not mean that they cease to exist--they are functional within certain, highly circumscribed areas of activity/inquiry...) just to say what should be obvious: this is in NO WAY an argument for a theory as self-evidently goofy as intelligent design. i dont feel like repeating myself any more. suffice it to say that this is why i understand the central problem at issue to be political or sociological. but now things circular grow. i may need more coffee before i track the circularity of it again. i may need more coffee to do it than i am capable of drinking. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-25-2007 at 06:38 AM..