The Ontological Tyranny

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:57 am

Only_Humean wrote:I think this seems to head too far the other way, for me.

Yes, it certainly is an extreme account. I think my primary concern is with a replacement for the tyranny of ontology, and so I'd rather not turn this into an argument over the viability of Nelson's naturalized epistemology; though such an argument would be productive -- perhaps another time.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:48 am

phyllo wrote:
I think you are indirectly supporting the tyranny of ontology in science, or else supporting it rather directly.

I do support it. The 'tyranny' is that it is perfect and unachievable in the real world. That's frustrating.

If it's unachievable, why strive for it? Why not alter our understanding of the way we do science to accommodate for the reality of inquiry?

phyllo wrote:The knowledge we have already agreed on is unchanging and fixed [...]

Here, I disagree. We are constantly revising, modifying, and undermining ourselves. This, I take it, is the strong-point of the scientific practice: it can admit of its own mistakes and so constantly overcome them, and itself; it need never be static.

phyllo wrote:At any point in time it may not be possible to determine which of two equally effective theories is correct. None the less, we want to know which one is correct. Work progresses with this goal in mind.

However, that we want to know which one is correct does not mean that one need be correct. This is her point. Of course, we want to know as much as we can, yet the realization that we don't know it all doesn't render what we do know irrelevant.

phyllo wrote: It's easy to dismiss data which does not conform to your values as experimental error. This is a major reason to eliminate bias - so that you collect real data.

Here, again, is where our understandings diverge. I hold that bias cannot be eliminated. I understand you to hold the same position: you've claimed more than once now that the tyranny of ontological science is an unattainable ideal. Why, then, do you continue to insist on upholding its tenants?
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Jakob » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:42 pm

The question is not: "are scientific laws objectively consistent with reality?" but: "with which reality are scientific laws consistent?"
As pointed out by Moreno, there are realities which rely on and support very different laws, such as the consciousness of plants. That such consciousness is not an absurd fiction but rather a necessity becomes clear when one understands all acts of life as acts of valuing, which axiom to a science independent from what we call "natural science".

Any science can point us in a direction that is valid given a certain assumption of how things can be known (the type of things we want to know are "hard facts"), but is not thereby the only valid direction in which working, "true" science may be gathered. From this follows that the claim to "the real truth" held by scientists ultimately holds no more validity than the psychotic holding to the truth of his hallucination, using it as a basis for further identification of relations between experiences.

Scientific truth is thoroughly subjective, culturally determined, and highlight only certain aspects of reality, which it then labels as "the true world". A logical non-sequitur, but no matter, it results in power, even if this power turns out to be of a deeply problematic nature.

It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted. People think that the scientific commitment to not value is itself value-neutral. But this is not the case - it is the imposition of a specific value-system on life, and the subsequent approach of life as if it could not exist without being understood in terms of that system. "Naturally there are no true values, our values tell us this".
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6097
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:41 pm

Jakob: You speak well on the topic; I think you've summarized the issues lurking beneath the surface of this thread.

Jakob wrote:Scientific truth is thoroughly subjective, culturally determined, and highlight only certain aspects of reality, which it then labels as "the true world".

Hence, the importance of Nelson.

Jakob wrote:A logical non-sequitur, but no matter, it results in power, even if this power turns out to be of a deeply problematic nature.

Hence, the importance of Foucault.

Jakob wrote:It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted. People think that the scientific commitment to not value is itself value-neutral. But this is not the case - it is the imposition of a specific value-system on life, and the subsequent approach of life as if it could not exist without being understood in terms of that system. "Naturally there are no true values, our values tell us this".

Hence, the importance of negating the tyranny of ontology in science; or at least striving toward overcoming it.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:01 pm

without-music: Can you explain more about what exactly is tyrranical here, and why? Is it tyrranical to be a realist? Is it tyrranical merely to be a scientist? It seems to me that word is being bandied about without much specificity.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:05 pm

anon wrote:without-music: Can you explain more about what exactly is tyrranical here, and why? Is it tyrranical to be a realist? Is it tyrranical merely to be a scientist? It seems to me that word is being bandied about without much specificity.

without-music wrote:The ontological tyranny grounds itself in the “strong claim that the objective reality – the reality converged upon through the application of objective methods – equals all of the Really Real”. Implicit are the assumptions that the Really Real exists independently of human knowers, objective knowledge of this independent reality requires a detached and disinterested reasoning, and that perspective or a non-disinterested point of view will get in the way of our access to independent reality. Last, that this reality is knowable to everyone. Thus, knowledge of the Really Real exists independently of who acquires it, as long as it is acquired through the proper methods. By accepting the ontological tyranny in any of its incarnations, a philosophy is thus committed to the view that good scientific knowledge is mandatorily neutral, non-value-laden and independent of individual knowers.

That science, insofar as it is good science, must follow such a methodology is what I am referring to as tyrannical.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:13 pm

without-music wrote:
anon wrote:without-music: Can you explain more about what exactly is tyrranical here, and why? Is it tyrranical to be a realist? Is it tyrranical merely to be a scientist? It seems to me that word is being bandied about without much specificity.

without-music wrote:The ontological tyranny grounds itself in the “strong claim that the objective reality – the reality converged upon through the application of objective methods – equals all of the Really Real”. Implicit are the assumptions that the Really Real exists independently of human knowers, objective knowledge of this independent reality requires a detached and disinterested reasoning, and that perspective or a non-disinterested point of view will get in the way of our access to independent reality. Last, that this reality is knowable to everyone. Thus, knowledge of the Really Real exists independently of who acquires it, as long as it is acquired through the proper methods. By accepting the ontological tyranny in any of its incarnations, a philosophy is thus committed to the view that good scientific knowledge is mandatorily neutral, non-value-laden and independent of individual knowers.

That science, insofar as it is good science, must follow such a methodology is what I am referring to as tyrannical.

Why "ontological" tyrrany, then? Why not "methodological" tyrrany? Surely a scientist can believe in an objective reality and that certain methods are better suited than others to discovering/describing that reality. And I think such a scientist, while likely raising his eyebrows at more unconventional methodologies, would be unlikely to claim that scientific results produced with unconventional methods are, therefore, invalid. In fact, I don't think he could make such a claim and continue to be as respected in the scientific community.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:17 pm

anon wrote:Why "ontological" tyrrany, then? Why not "methodological" tyrrany? Surely a scientist can believe in an objective reality and that certain methods are better suited than others to discovering/describing that reality. And I think such a scientist, while likely raising his eyebrows at more unconventional methodologies, would be unlikely to claim that scientific results produced with unconventional methods are, therefore, invalid. In fact, I don't think he could make such a claim and continue to be as respected in the scientific community.

Well, first: the term is not mine, it's Elizabeth Potter's. Second: the methodology is derived from, and grounds itself in, the ontology.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:28 pm

without-music wrote:
anon wrote:Why "ontological" tyrrany, then? Why not "methodological" tyrrany? Surely a scientist can believe in an objective reality and that certain methods are better suited than others to discovering/describing that reality. And I think such a scientist, while likely raising his eyebrows at more unconventional methodologies, would be unlikely to claim that scientific results produced with unconventional methods are, therefore, invalid. In fact, I don't think he could make such a claim and continue to be as respected in the scientific community.

Well, first: the term is not mine, it's Elizabeth Potter's. Second: the methodology is derived from, and grounds itself in, the ontology.

But rejecting a particular ontological view from participation in the scientific enterprise is itself tyrranical, no? Science depends on verifiable results. Fundamentalist Christians can be (and are!) scientists. Their values are presumably part and parcel of how they do science, but the science they produce remains independent of their (idiosyncratic) values - it is common property, which transcends particular belief systems. What they produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:35 pm

anon wrote:Their values are presumably part and parcel of how they do science, but the science they produce remains independent of their (idiosyncratic) values - it is common property, which transcends particular belief systems. What they produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.

I completely disagree. Refer to my tabbed post, here, for what is more or less my understanding of the scientific practice.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby turtle » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:08 pm

without-music wrote:
anon wrote:Their values are presumably part and parcel of how they do science, but the science they produce remains independent of their (idiosyncratic) values - it is common property, which transcends particular belief systems. What they produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.

I completely disagree. Refer to my tabbed post, here, for what is more or less my understanding of the scientific practice.

well we are down to base rock.....i agree with anon and disagree with music..i now know what the music position is....there is objective truth(99.9%) that can be handled neutrally.....
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm

If it's unachievable, why strive for it? Why not alter our understanding of the way we do science to accommodate for the reality of inquiry?
It's a desirable ideal.
A karate master practices his entire life fully aware that perfection of form is impossible.
We work to gain knowledge more even though we can never know everything.
Here, I disagree. We are constantly revising, modifying, and undermining ourselves. This, I take it, is the strong-point of the scientific practice: it can admit of its own mistakes and so constantly overcome them, and itself; it need never be static.
There are certain aspects of science on which we have agreement. The topics listed in an elementary physics book are not changing. Currently active fields of research are changing. The results may overturn theories which are decades or centuries old but they won't overturn everything. There is a solid foundation of knowledge on which we are building.
However, that we want to know which one is correct does not mean that one need be correct.

Philosophically speaking we do need to be correct. If we are only interested in making calculations and predictions, then any theory which produces good results is useful. That is an engineering approach - the application of science to solve a problem. Science, itself, is seeking the really real.
Here, again, is where our understandings diverge. I hold that bias cannot be eliminated. I understand you to hold the same position: you've claimed more than once now that the tyranny of ontological science is an unattainable ideal. Why, then, do you continue to insist on upholding its tenants?

The bias cannot be eliminated but it can be reduced. Reducing the bias produces better results - better science.
Encouraging a value-laden bias will distort the results in the direction of those values. If you hold those values, then you may consider it beneficial. In reality, it is not beneficial. Your agricultural studies example showed an initially male bias study being 'overturned' by a female bias study. I would say that if both studies attempted to take a neutral position, the results would have been closer to the truth.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:37 pm

without-music wrote:
anon wrote:Their values are presumably part and parcel of how they do science, but the science they produce remains independent of their (idiosyncratic) values - it is common property, which transcends particular belief systems. What they produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.

I completely disagree. Refer to my tabbed post, here, for what is more or less my understanding of the scientific practice.

Considering how sympathetic I am to your views here, I'm surprised you "completely disagree".

In attacking "objectivity", be careful not to throw out intersubjectivity with it. True or not, theories that work are theories that work. They work whether or not I want them to, and whether or not they conflict with my religious beliefs. Feminist values, alternative methodologies... these are not problems (and might be quite beneficial) assuming they produce results that are relevant to the scientific community.

Thus, for Nelson, if two differing theories are both adequate in explaining observable phenomenon and predicting experience, then we need not concern ourselves with the question of which theory is false. Indeed, a given theory is valid not because of its truth, but because it is able “to make sense of what we experience and to predict our experience” (37). If the value of science is instrumental, and both theories satisfy our needs equally, then the idea that they can both exist is not necessarily a problem.

I was as careful to include the word "idiosyncratic" as Nelson was to use the word "necessarily" (both words bolded in this post).

Scientists study the "real". I'm not sure what the "really real" even is, other than a metaphysical belief of some kind. But a scientist who believes in the "really real" is just as capable of studying the "real" as an instrumentalist is. The validity of a scientific theory does not rest on methodology or belief. Science is a discipline. As such, there are scientific values, scientific rules. Those rules are what make science science, and not something else.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:39 pm

As pointed out by Moreno, there are realities which rely on and support very different laws, such as the consciousness of plants. That such consciousness is not an absurd fiction but rather a necessity becomes clear when one understands all acts of life as acts of valuing, which axiom to a science independent from what we call "natural science".

Determining whether plants are conscious sounds interesting. Why can't science investigate it?
It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted.

I can think of some reasons for 'the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world' but I don't think that applying a neutral scientific approach is one of them.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:10 pm

turtle wrote:well we are down to base rock.....i agree with anon and disagree with music..i now know what the music position is....there is objective truth(99.9%) that can be handled neutrally.....

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for such a conclusion.

anon: I think my main problem lies with your statement that "what [scientists] produce does not remain dependent on how they got there." I think knowledge is always contextual, for reasons enumerated throughout the thread.

anon wrote:The validity of a scientific theory does not rest on methodology or belief. Science is a discipline. As such, there are scientific values, scientific rules. Those rules are what make science science, and not something else.

The scientific discourse works under its own rules of legitimation. These rules are grounded in the tyranny of ontology, and so science done outside of such an ontology, subject to the rules of the discourse, isn't permitted entry, isn't qualified as science. These rules can change, and they must change as far as I'm concerned. Insofar as these rules are derived from the tyranny of ontology, the validity of a scientific theory does rest on methodology, and insofar as such an ontology is a belief, validity does rest on belief.

phyllo wrote:A karate master practices his entire life fully aware that perfection of form is impossible.

I think the issue is that philosophers of science aren't aware that objectivity is impossible. This is the meaning of the tyranny. We can still admit values into science while striving for neutrality, for those values are going to worm their way in regardless. My intention is not for science to embrace as much value-ladenness as it can manage, my intention is that science accepts its inevitable bias, and embraces that bias that is ineradicable.

phyllo wrote:There are certain aspects of science on which we have agreement. The topics listed in an elementary physics book are not changing.

I disagree. That we have agreement does not mean that we have reached certainty. We have previously agreed on knowledge that has since undergone serious revision and reconsideration. Further, I believe that the topics listed in an elementary physics book are changing, and will continue to change in the foreseeable future.

phyllo wrote:I would say that if both studies attempted to take a neutral position, the results would have been closer to the truth.

They did attempt neutrality: the traditionalists believed they were being objective. The feminists, contrarily, sought neutrality while embracing the values that they couldn't leave at the door.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:37 pm

My intention is not for science to embrace as much value-ladenness as it can manage, my intention is that science accepts its inevitable bias, and embraces that bias that is ineradicable.

They did attempt neutrality: the traditionalists believed they were being objective. The feminists, contrarily, sought neutrality while embracing the values that they couldn't leave at the door.

This is where you lose me on the subtle distinctions.
How do you 'embrace that bias that is ineradicable'? What does it mean in the context of gathering data and analyzing the data? How does 'the embrace' change the theory?

How did the feminists seek neutrality? Presumably they went into the study trying to show the influence of women. Didn't they pick data that substantiated this theory? Did they reject data just as the male traditionalists had done? How do we know which data they rejected?
How neutral was the study?
Do you admit that neutrality is desirable? Nelson doesn't think so.
Last edited by phyllo on Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:39 pm

without-music wrote:anon: I think my main problem lies with your statement that "what [scientists] produce does not remain dependent on how they got there." I think knowledge is always contextual, for reasons enumerated throughout the thread.

I think knowledge is always contextual as well. But the context of scientific knowledge is bigger than you might be suggesting it is. Is scientific knowledge limited to anglo-saxon culture, for example? No, it applies more universally than that. And we can't just choose, even collectively, what kind of knowledge scientific research will provide. You can't just say, "The scientific discourse works under its own rules of legitimation" and leave it at that. Scientific knowledge is as much about discovery as it is about construction.

anon wrote:The validity of a scientific theory does not rest on methodology or belief. Science is a discipline. As such, there are scientific values, scientific rules. Those rules are what make science science, and not something else.

The scientific discourse works under its own rules of legitimation.

Sure. But which rules are essential to scientific inquiry? It's not a rule that you must have (or not) a particular religious outlook. It's not a rule that you can't have personal prejudices.

These rules are grounded in the tyranny of ontology, and so science done outside of such an ontology, subject to the rules of the discourse, isn't permitted entry, isn't qualified as science.

Some scientific rules are essential. When you break them, you aren't doing science any more. Other scientific rules come and go. I think you have to be very specific - if you have an issue with a certain "rule" (whether canonical or unspoken assumption), then that "rule" should be discussed on its own. The fact is, however, not everything is science.

These rules can change, and they must change as far as I'm concerned. Insofar as these rules are derived from the tyranny of ontology, the validity of a scientific theory does rest on methodology, and insofar as such an ontology is a belief, validity does rest on belief.

Which rules should change? All of them? Are you suggesting that science doesn't investigate (even if in a limited way) our common reality?
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby turtle » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:50 pm

actually this so-called "ontological tyranny" and "really real" are cofusing a discussion about reality and objective truth....music cant you write more clearly about reality....this is almost like playing word games....
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:44 pm

phyllo wrote:his is where you lose me on the subtle distinctions.
How do you 'embrace that bias that is ineradicable'? What does it mean in the context of gathering data and analyzing the data? How does 'the embrace' change the theory?

That's a really exacting question; I'll be sure to look over my notes before giving you a response.

phyllo wrote:How did the feminists seek neutrality? Presumably they went into the study trying to show the influence of women. Didn't they pick data that substantiated this theory? Did they reject data just as the male traditionalists had done? How do we know which data they rejected?

The feminists went into the study trying to develop a theory that did a better job in accounting for observed phenomena. If we can agree that their resultant conclusion was the better of the two, then we needn't occupy ourselves with the last three of your questions.

phyllo wrote:Do you admit that neutrality is desirable? Nelson doesn't think so.

I think neutrality is unattainable. Nelson goes slightly further than I, though I believe we're "on the same page", so to speak.

anon wrote:I think knowledge is always contextual as well. But the context of scientific knowledge is bigger than you might be suggesting it is.

Duly noted.

anon wrote:And we can't just choose, even collectively, what kind of knowledge scientific research will provide.

I agree in that we can't just "choose"; the issue is far subtler: the scientific discourse operates within certain boundaries, and under certain restrictions. These restrictions work to legitimate that kind of knowledge scientific research produces, while negating or "refusing entry" to the rest. These restrictions are intrinsic to the discourse: they consist of the "rules" of science, as you've said: who can produce knowledge, under what conditions, through what process, after how much verification, in what context, for what purpose, etc.

anon wrote:Sure. But which rules are essential to scientific inquiry? It's not a rule that you must have (or not) a particular religious outlook. It's not a rule that you can't have personal prejudices.

I think, generally speaking, rules rooted in the ontological tyranny are currently considered essential to proper inquiry. These can be changed, and I think they must be changed, as I've said. In short: the discourse needs to be allowed to grow and change.

anon wrote:Are you suggesting that science doesn't investigate (even if in a limited way) our common reality?

I know I'm being vague, but that's not what I'm suggesting: this is a topic that currently interests me, one that I'm currently working through an understanding and conceptualization of. My stance isn't concrete. However, I am suggesting that science understands itself, and so allows itself to be reproduced, in a certain way: this understanding seems to me to be rooted in the tyranny of ontology. It is this understanding of itself that provides a framework for the scientific discourse as well as, in turn, the restrictions that constitute such a discourse. To overcome this understanding is to alter the discourse and so change the rules of legitimation: it is to change the way science is allowed to be done, the way knowledge is allowed to be produced.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:50 pm

Without-Music, have you read Paul Feyerabend? Nancy Cartwright? Seems like they would interest you.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby without-music » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:53 pm

anon wrote:Without-Music, have you read Paul Feyerabend? Nancy Cartwright? Seems like they would interest you.

I have not. Can you suggest a particular work to begin with? I appreciate the recommendation, though.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby anon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:02 pm

without-music wrote:
anon wrote:Without-Music, have you read Paul Feyerabend? Nancy Cartwright? Seems like they would interest you.

I have not. Can you suggest a particular work to begin with? I appreciate the recommendation, though.

I haven't read Cartwright at all - I've only had some online contact with her ideas (not personally - just, you know, Wikipedia etc.) I've read some Feyerabend, but not much. I had a book called Farewell to Reason for a while, and read an essay or two from it. I think he's most famous for Against Method though.

Wiki on Feyerabend's philosophy of science

Wiki on Nancy Cartwright

I'm sure I've read some stuff of Cartwright's (I think from How The Laws of Physics Lie) but I don't know where. If you try, you might dig something up online.

EDIT: Here's an online version of How The Laws of Physics Lie
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:43 pm

The feminists went into the study trying to develop a theory that did a better job in accounting for observed phenomena. If we can agree that their resultant conclusion was the better of the two, then we needn't occupy ourselves with the last three of your questions.
The handling of data is critical to any experiment. We have assumed that the data is collected and processed in a neutral manner. That implies that data which supports or contradicts a theory is accepted and rejected on a fair and equal basis. That is or should be the goal of the ontological tyranny. If a value-laden method is embraced, does it not become legitimate to include more supporting data and exclude more contradictory data? Once the paper is written no one has access to the raw data. How can we decide if the resultant conclusion was better? We decide based on our own values - we side with the sexist male study or the feminist study. I don't think science like that should be encouraged. We need to move as far away from that as possible.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby attano » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:33 pm

without-music wrote:I think it would be rather productive to engage the topic, the tyranny of ontology in science. Philosophers like Nelson and Anderson propose alternative ways to understand the scientific enterprise: Lynn Nelson and her holistic account of naturalized epistemology counted among my favourites. However, there are still many thinkers taking the light for their science from Plato's fire, to speak with Nietzsche. To begin, then: is it possible to today defend the ontological tyranny, or must it be thrown away out of hand?


This is a question that passionates philosophers, most scientists would tend to dismiss it as irrelevant.
Ultimately Realism rests on the principle of economy in science, I guess that many scientists don’t really believe in the (divine) Really Real - as Only_Humean said.
Working on competing metaphysics (because that is what it is) could be valued by scientists only in terms of how much power that could wield to new theories - although they might have more personal leanings for one metaphysics or the other.
Anyway I guess I am with you on this, philosophically ontological tyranny is over. But with one remark: it is rejected for the same platonic reasons and/or for the same principle of economy that led to it. There are over-assumptions in Realism, and they might be not “true” (and not necessary). And this is the same attitude discussed in GS 344 - that I guess you know very well.
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: The Ontological Tyranny

Postby Moreno » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:34 pm

Jakob wrote:It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted. People think that the scientific commitment to not value is itself value-neutral. But this is not the case - it is the imposition of a specific value-system on life, and the subsequent approach of life as if it could not exist without being understood in terms of that system. "Naturally there are no true values, our values tell us this".

Just wanted to highlight what I bolded above - all we ever have is what is scientifically verified NOW. The set of knowledge/beliefs 1) may be modified, in fact is very likely to be modified, even with some things being later dismissed 2) is what we have achieved SO FAR. A lot of people, even sadly scientists, act as if we have some rather large % of what can possibly be known already known. So ideas that do not seem to fit with the known, even if they do not contradict current research, are often dismissed out of hand. Present scientific knowledge - this set - is limited by technology, intereste, funding, biases - paradignmatic or other - and no doubt other factors. But when ideas are raised outside accepted science but not contradicting accepted scientific knowledge there is a strong knne jerk reaction - often backed up by 'rationality' for why these ideas are incredibly unlikely at best. This is not supported by scientific methodology or epistemology yet is endemic.

I think it also needs to be pointed out that all of us use non-scientific methodologies to navigate the world, including obviously the most concrete decision-making. In out social lives, political life, work lives and so on. Even, as I pointed out earlier, it is taken for granted in scientific inquiry itself that there are other modes of coming at knowledge - though there is a in practice distrust of these despite their consistent use.

Anyone who would not believe something unless science verified it would not survive very long.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exuberant Teleportation