A large part of communication is being easily understood. Sometimes in ones effort to communicate this becomes obfuscated by erudite sounding phrases and terms which are unnecessary to the primary focus of the subject and end up making the messages less accessible to those unversed in the style.
On the other hand lets break this shit down and get to the meat of it. I have attempted to do just this in a lighthearted manner, and I feel qualified to do so based on past credentials which are available on request.
I have done so in 3 parts.
Quote:
|
The first is the original quote.
|
The second is my proposed translation.
The third is my response to that quote/translation.
Some extraneous thought was removed.
As I saw 40 people while this was being written there may well be some disjointedness.
Quote:
|
ok so let's see...if this continues along these lines, it seems like all we are in store for is apissing match, so how can the ground be shifted a bit harder?
|
Lets change directions.
Quote:
|
way back in the posts numbered in the 70s somewhere, i wrote something about not quite understanding why the arguments in this thread were set up as they were such that for one side there is a notion of science that is roughly consistent with the contemporary understandings of the term that--letigimately--rejects astrology *as a science*--and this simply because to accept it as science requires that you also accept a geocentric universe. period.
|
Science rejects astrology because astrology is based on the earth as the center of the universe
Well I suppose thats a reason to question the basis of the star charts, but its not the question at hand really. I'm willing to give astrology the benefit of the doubt that it still works in a non-geocentric universe. The scientific argument has to do with its validity as any sort of predicting tool.
Quote:
|
and on the other side, there are two sets of objections: dave's position, which to mind is a misunderstanding of thomas kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" that relies on a sequence of claims that i see as having no merit which amount to the claim that astrology may well be a science, but that only visionaries (like dave, presumably) think so---and that the "common herd" enacts its slave mentality by ridiculing these visionaries---the problem being--than as now--that the argument pivot not on the claim that astrology might be interesting for some or many reason(s), but rather that in order to BE interesting, astrology has to be accepted as a science. so dave and ustwo are arguing mirror images of the same game.
|
Dave thinks that astronomy is valid but not well understood so is mocked by those who can't understand it. He is wrongly forcing astrology into the realm of science to defend it where it doesn't belong much like Ustwo is using science to debunk it
Quote:
|
it seems to me that these positions over and undervalue "science" at once--overvalue it in that science comes to occupy the position of arbiter for determinations of interest in general, which is absurd on the face of it, and little more than an expression of an aesthetic position at a deeper level--and undervalue science insofar as it is presented as a monolithic abstraction hovering over what by this point in the thread has become a kind of tedious ritual concerning whose posts get to invoke the word.
|
Science shouldn't be the only factor to determine what is interesting or relevant, but it also can not be treated as a singular object to be dismissed out of hand.
I don't think anyone said that there wasn't any beauty or interesting things done with astrology. Some of the star charts are very impressive in both complexity and artistic beauty. I'm just saying it can't tell you if you are suited to be a stock broker.
Quote:
|
this is a no-win situation, and it seems to me that the game is by now basically over on this argument.
|
There is no point in attempting to discuss astrology scientifically
Quote:
and then there are the positions pan outlines, which are quite different, but which seem to be getting collpased back into davematrix's positions. maybe this is the power of context, i dunno.
so the point of this post is to see if i can help push things onto another set of grounds. pan addresses questions of belief, the loops that link up general propositions (statements about the world, about the orders of the world) to information. if i read his posts correctly, i could extend one of their dimensions into a basic challenge to ustwo's position---how exactly are you using the abstraction "science"?
|
[Translation note, needed further context to translate, dubious accuracy]
What is science as it applies to lifes questions?
Quote:
|
when it comes down to it, and a bit of the underpinning gets revealed, the basic discipline invoked appears to be biology, but of no particular genre, as if biology is a single entity, one stream of work, one logic structuring all research--none of which is true. so when you use the term "science" to dismiss the positions of others, what exactly are you referencing?
|
It appears to be that the biology is being used, but biology isn't just one 'thing' but several difference disciplines. Which part of it are you using when you invoke 'science'?
Mmm I only invoked biology in response to pans flawed examples of 'unsolvable' problems. It was to illustrate his lack of understanding of biologic systems does not mean they are unanswerable.
Quote:
|
another way: on what basis do you adopt the rhetorical position of the voice of science in your posts in this thread?
|
Why do you feel you speak for science?
Because I am a scientist. Not a scientist as seen by an undereducated public as some sort of wizard, either good, neutral, or evil, but as one forged in the lecture hall, honed in the laboratories, and tested in the field. I claim to be no expert on all subjects, science as an abstract is meaningless. What I do claim to be an expert on is the method, the way one must look at a question to see if it holds up to scrutiny. The language, the format, the mistakes I know. Science isn't a discipline, its a method, and its that method which I put forth as the measure of validity to lifes questions. Questions that can not be answered by this method are not answerable by any method. Often the problem isn't the method but that we dont' really know the question to ask, but assuming that some can never be formulated that does not make the question valid. For example: "Why are there undetectable mice living in my ear? " is a question that can not be answered by this method but its still a stupid question.
Luckily for us, astrology doesn't fall into the invisible mice category. It makes predictions, predictions which can be directly tested, and it has failed. Its value as a hypothesis is reduced. This makes its a scientific question not a philosophical one, one which it fails to deliver what it claims to do. Were this a drug we wouldn't be having this debate, but because its under the new age psuedo science umbrella we people people defending it with the same methods as those who defend that a Jewish man rose from the dead.
Quote:
second problem: this notion of what is and is not "true" i
if you just throw the word around, no problemo. that which is not "true" is a lie so anything that is not a lie is "true"....but it aint like that. not really.
a statement that is true is formally correct. it (implicitly or explicitly) references the results of running a proof, and emerges as true if it is logically consistent with the axioms--and does not violate the rules that govern deductions--which are particular to given proofs--there are not generally agreed upon rules for deduction, there is no Big Single Proof that we have around, that we can reference and on the basis of which we can say that any proposition is "True" in an absolute sense. knowledge, like everything else, is regional.
|
There is no absolute truth in science or anything else, and the rules that govern the process of the truth being determined vary
Science will not give you an absolute truth, there is always wiggle room either way even with theories that held up time and time again. What I think there is, is a relativity of wrong. I'm sure that our current theory of star formation is not 'true' there are mistakes based on a lack of data. What I'm also sure of is that its far more correct than a myth of the gods throwing rice onto the sky or any number of early creation stories.
Quote:
|
you can have arguments about which set of axioms is preferable to another, which set of rules governing deduction (which is a procedure and nothing more--an efficient procedure, a worhtwhile procedure--but still, a procedure) are preferable to others--and that debate would devolve sooner or later onto a discussion of the persuasive power of this or that proof, which would in turn devolve onto structures of belief, procedures that enable one to guage relative interpretive power, etc. in such a debate, the relative *social value* of one set of axioms and procedures over another becomes a criterion amongst others that are involved in the play of the debate--these claims would not hover over the debate, and invoking them would not end it. because in the end, what is being debated is less the accumulated bodies of socially legitimate information about the world in themselves than the relations one adopts to these bodies of information---because you are NOT that information, you invoke it in particular contexts, in particular ways.
|
(Translators note: Luckily I have extra strength asprin on my desk)
You can debate the method of deduction you use to determine the validity of a question. This would then turn into a debate about which proof was more persuasive with in then leads to which beliefs you hold and then which method is more socially relevant. This would do nothing to determine if the original question was valid. In the end what is discussed is not the question at hand but how you relate to that question and you twist it to your own point of view
Quote:
|
this is not to say that anything goes--but it is to say that there is a different and quite complex discussion that could be had at this point that is simply not happening, even though the ball is now bouncing around the court and pan has put it there.
|
I'd rather not talk about the science aspect but the social one that pan brought up
Quote:
|
another way: at this point in the discussion, it seems absurd to make the move that ustwo makes in number 125, which amounts to the claim that i, the subject position from which the post operates, i occupy Science and that anyone who raises questions--NOT about science, but about my claims regarding science--is stupid. you act as though the sciences are the ONLY legitimate discursive framework available--which is ridiculous--but it might explain something of your politics--not in themselves, but about your relation to politics, IF you route those committments through the same circuit of legitimation as you route your claims to be the voice of science.
|
(Translators note: Lets just talk about this one directly)
What the hell are you talking about? First off it wasn't about anything you had said, it was a direct response to why 'letting' people believe nonsense like astrology is not good for the population as a whole. You have no problem telling me how my political beliefs are wrong, yet somehow its wrong for me to point out the verifiable wrongness in astrology? If my politics are indeed directed through the same circuit as I use for my scientific inquiries then I'm quite happy with it, its far better to use logic and reason in ones politics then phases of the moon.
Quote:
this is a matter of rhetoric in posts, btw. this is a written debate and there is nothing but rhetorical postures involved with it.
let's see if this shove works.
maybe it's kinda opaque in that it invokes a separate discursive frame (philosophy) and places that frame in a position of being able to adjudicate in an argument. that itself might be a problem--but you'd have to argue that point. you cant simply assert it.
anyway, shove delivered.
the wings await me awaiting in them.
|
Lets talk about this from a philosophical standpoint so we can link the social and scientific sides.
And lets talk about the social context of angels dancing on the head of a pin too.