|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 07/13/2005 : 16:42:01
|
Apparently, Dawkins thinks the universe is too queer for us to get it.
quote:
from BBC
Professor Dawkins, the renowned Selfish Gene author from Oxford University, said we were living in a "middle world" reality that we have created.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4676751.stm full story.
How quaint.
|
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 09:57:32 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, more lazy, post modernist, new age thinking IMO.
Are brains imperfect? For sure.
Do they filter information? Absolutly.
Have trouble grasping quantum mechanics and galactic formation? Yep.
Create reality? Um... No.
Perhaps Professor Dawkins is confusing 'reality' and 'our perception of reality'. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 23:15:00 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt... I think you are suffering from a semantics problem. I don't think Dawkins meant "create reality" in the sense that you are suggesting.
Also, I've found that often when people dismiss something by saying it is postmodern, they are just being too intellectually lazy to address what they specifically take issue with. Or worse, they just want to make a sweeping generalization, because that makes their objection sound more dramatic - and perhaps more convincing - in a debate. Much of postmodernity has been useful and enlightening. Just because it leads to absurdities in some or even many instances, doesn't mean that postmodernism is an entirely bad concept. Post modernism is also not the same thing as "new age", and nothing in this article seemed to suggest new age thinking at all. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/21/2005 23:18:35 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 13:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
dv82matt... I think you are suffering from a semantics problem. I don't think Dawkins meant "create reality" in the sense that you are suggesting.
Perhaps you are right. In what sense do you think he meant "create reality"?quote:
Also, I've found that often when people dismiss something by saying it is postmodern, they are just being too intellectually lazy to address what they specifically take issue with.
I take issue with the idea that we "create reality"quote:
Or worse, they just want to make a sweeping generalization, because that makes their objection sound more dramatic - and perhaps more convincing - in a debate.
Did it work? Were you convinced?  quote:
Much of postmodernity has been useful and enlightening.
Personally I don't have much use for postmodern ideas. I may be ignorant of its positive attributes. Please enlighten.quote:
Just because it leads to absurdities in some or even many instances, doesn't mean that postmodernism is an entirely bad concept.
No, although that does cast doubt on the concept. IMO one thing that makes postmodernism a 'bad' concept is the general dissatisfaction with science that it tends to evoke.quote:
Post modernism is also not the same thing as "new age", and nothing in this article seemed to suggest new age thinking at all.
Well the idea that we "create reality" stuck me as very new agey. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 13:50:14 [Permalink]
|
I'll second Matt's request for an enlightenment on the positive aspects of postmodernism.
And, by the way, when I take someone to task for being a postmodernist (not that you asked about me), it's because they've displayed an attitude that since science is a human endeavor and subject to human failings, science offers no more of the "truth" than any other human epistemology, including religious "revelation" or even guessing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 14:47:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Perhaps you are right. In what sense do you think he meant "create reality?"
I think Dawkins was just trying to remind people that what we often think of as reality is only our sense organs' simulation of it. We don't create objective reality, but we do experience objective reality indirectly as a reconstruction projected into our consciousnesses.
That's this "Middle World" we are trapped in. Aware of external reality, yet only able to experience a limited slice of it due to our physical limitations. He wasn't speaking about the mental paradigms that filter our perceptions (or maybe not just those), but also the ways in which our bodies are capable of relaying information to us about external reality...or incapable, as the case may be.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/22/2005 15:19:12 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 17:12:21 [Permalink]
|
Responding to Ricky and H. Humbert here.
I understand your points and I agree, but by failing to be clear that he is talking about our perception of reality, and not reality itself, he comes across as if he is attempting to blur the line between the two.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 17:30:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I understand your points and I agree, but by failing to be clear that he is talking about our perception of reality, and not reality itself, he comes across as if he is attempting to blur the line between the two.
It was clear to me. [shrug] Then again, maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Dawkins and I know he wouldn't propose something so absurd.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/22/2005 17:31:00 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 18:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I think I see where you are coming from. There are those who think that we can think something and (physically) create it in our universe. And Dawkins is using similar words, but with completely different meanings. I believe a lot of confusion can come out of this.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It was clear to me. [shrug] Then again, maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Dawkins and I know he wouldn't propose something so absurd.
Fair enough. If those who are familiar with his ideas are unlikely to get the wrong impression, then I withdraw my critisism. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 00:06:59 [Permalink]
|
"I understand your points and I agree, but by failing to be clear that he is talking about our perception of reality, and not reality itself, he comes across as if he is attempting to blur the line between the two."
Well, the issues's already been well addressed, but I'd like to point out that this is exactly why sound clips from the media are a dangerous thing. Because one phrase or sentence or even a paragraph of what someone says, taken out of context, can be totally misused or misunderstood. I think Dawkins simply said "create reality" to be poetic and for the sake of economy of words, because his belief in an objective reality are already clear from his work.
OK, on to the postmodernism thing...
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 00:36:13 [Permalink]
|
Positive atributes, as quoted from an article in wikipedia (more eloquent than me): "Artifacts of postmodernity include the dominance of television and popular culture, the wide accessibility of information and mass and telecommunications. Postmodernity also exhibits a greater resistance to making sacrifices in the name of progress, including such features as environmentalism and the growing importance of the anti-war movement. Postmodernity in the industrialised core is marked by increasing focus on civil rights and equal opportunity, as seen by such movements as feminism and multi-culturalism, as well as the backlash against these movements."
Postmodernism is a distinctly Western philosophy, and its value has to be seen within its historical context. The term itself sounds flaky because, well - "modern" means current, right, and how can something be after the current? But it has a stupid name only because "modernism" had a stupid name first.
Postmodernism is in response to modernism, which rejected tradition, tended toward a linear idea of progress, and supported cultural hierarchy. While many wonderful things sprung from modernism, so did many horrible things: social Darwinism, the neglect of women's and minorities' points of view in all academic pursuits, the technological development of weapons of mass destruction, and social alienation.
The creation of the atom bomb is not the result of an inherent flaw with modernism any more than New Age BS is the result of an inherent flaw in postmodernism. They are just different ways of thinking. Modernism is progressive, monistic, and idealistic. Postmodernism is adaptive, pluralistic and realistic.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 19:19:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Well, the issues's already been well addressed, but I'd like to point out that this is exactly why sound clips from the media are a dangerous thing. Because one phrase or sentence or even a paragraph of what someone says, taken out of context, can be totally misused or misunderstood. I think Dawkins simply said "create reality" to be poetic and for the sake of economy of words, because his belief in an objective reality are already clear from his work.
Yeah, not being familiar with Dawkins, I took the article at face value. I appreciate you pointing out my error.quote:
Positive atributes, as quoted from an article in wikipedia (more eloquent than me): "Artifacts of postmodernity include the dominance of television and popular culture, the wide accessibility of information and mass and telecommunications.
I'm not sure in what sense they (and you) mean artifacts here. If they mean that postmodernity is responsible for the dominance of the things mentioned here, then I would take issue with that idea. If they mean that the dominance of these things are a driving force behind social postmodernity and are of great interest to postmodern thinkers then I would agree.quote:
Postmodernity also exhibits a greater resistance to making sacrifices in the name of progress, including such features as environmentalism and the growing importance of the anti-war movement. Postmodernity in the industrialised core is marked by increasing focus on civil rights and equal opportunity, as seen by such movements as feminism and multi-culturalism, as well as the backlash against these movements."
Here's the Wikipedia article that goes with the quote.
Reading this I begin to suspect that, in a social context, postmodernity is merely the name given to changes in social attitudes and values since the end of the Second World War. Is this about right?quote:
Postmodernism is a distinctly Western philosophy, and its value has to be seen within its historical context.
Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on postmodernism. Apparently postmodernity and postmodernism are not exactly the same thing.quote:
Postmodernism is in response to modernism, which rejected tradition, tended toward a linear idea of progress, and supported cultural hierarchy. While many wonderful things sprung from modernism, so did many horrible things: social Darwinism, the neglect of women's and minorities' points of view in all academic pursuits, the technological development of weapons of mass destruction, and social alienation.
Other than weapons of mass destruction, and possibly eugenics, I would say that none of those things sprung from modernism. I would say that they were problems long before modernism came along. I am, of course, in favor of fixing these problems. I would hope though, that we do not have to discard the many positive achievements of modernism, especially the scientific method, in order to do so.quote:
The creation of the atom bomb is not the result of an inherent flaw with modernism any more than New Age BS is the result of an inherent flaw in postmodernism. They are just different ways of thinking.
Okay, but postmodernism does seem to be rather hostile towards the idea of objective reality, and to methods of finding out about it, including the scientific method. This seems like an inherent flaw in postmodernism.quote:
Modernism is progressive, monistic, and idealistic. Postmodernism is adaptive, pluralistic and realistic.
To me modernism is progressive (it values progress), adaptive (it adapts to conditions), idealistic (it generally has good intentions), and realistic (it is based on the scientific method). I'm not sure in what sense it could be said to be monistic. It does seek to explain and understand. Often these explanations unify what previously appeared to be seperate proccesses.
Postmodernism, on the other hand, seems to be a random collage of contradictory ideas and values. It seems to exist only as a counterweight to modernism and has nothing of its own to offer, except its steadfast opposition to modernism.
I'm having difficulty understanding precisily what postmodernism is. Here's one definition, and here's some definitions from google, and here's an interesting article from elsewhere.org. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 07/27/2005 00:38:11 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 18:01:33 [Permalink]
|
The most common misconceptions about postmodernism is that it is "random" and "contradictory". Postmodernism is a philosophy - it is a method for discovering truth that involves basically examining other philosophies and trying to take what is useful from each of them. Even though all postmodern thinkers are using this method, they are not all going to come to the same conclusions. (That's true of the Humanist philosphy too - not all Humanists agree on issues of ethics and politics, for example.) The Unitarian Universalist religion is a lot like postmodernism - adherents study various belief systems and pick and choose what is useful to them as individuals. A postmodernist does not have to discard the scientific method. They can take that from modernism and apply it to their collage. (At at least most, if not all, academic postmodernist do.)
It is my understanding that postmodernism does not actually oppose the idea of an objective reality. I think the confusion largely comes with semantics (which totally relates to this discussion and Dawkins statement, eh?) In the era of modernism, scientists thought they were being objective, and later it became obvious that they were allowing their social and cultural prejudices to taint their work. A modernist would say that in general, society is moving toward being more objective and less culturally bias. A postmodernist says that's bullshit and is always trying to figure out what our current biases might be. A postmodernist doesn't throw out the idea of objective reality. But, like an agnostic is skeptical that we can know the truth about God, postmodernists are skeptical of people being able to percieve reality from an objective perspective. Not to say that some perspectives aren't closer than others, but a postmodernists tries to stay open and try on lots of different hats, so to speak, because they believe that is a better method for getting closer to reality.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2005 18:03:11 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 19:21:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The most common misconceptions about postmodernism is that it is "random" and "contradictory".
So far I'm not convinced that it's a misconception.quote:
Postmodernism is a philosophy - it is a method for discovering truth that involves basically examining other philosophies and trying to take what is useful from each of them.
Can you give some examples of truths that have been discovered by postmodernism?quote:
Even though all postmodern thinkers are using this method, they are not all going to come to the same conclusions. (That's true of the Humanist philosphy too - not all Humanists agree on issues of ethics and politics, for example.)
This is fair enough. I would be more surprised if they did all come to the same conclusions.quote:
The Unitarian Universalist religion is a lot like postmodernism - adherents study various belief systems and pick and choose what is useful to them as individuals.
See, it's this pick and choose what you like mentality that I don't agree with. If you don't like a particular aspect of reality, well then, it doesn't really exist.quote:
A postmodernist does not have to discard the scientific method. They can take that from modernism and apply it to their collage. (At at least most, if not all, academic postmodernist do.)
Yeah, but under a postmodern framework, there's no reason not to discard the scientific method, or to pick and choose which parts of science are valid for you personally.quote:
It is my understanding that postmodernism does not actually oppose the idea of an objective reality. I think the confusion largely comes with semantics (which totally relates to this discussion and Dawkins statement, eh?)
You'll notice that my misunderstanding of Dawkins was relatively simple to clear up. Not so with postmodernism. Postmodernism declares that the medium is the message. This idea, if strictly adhered to, renders language useless as a means of communications.quote:
In the era of modernism, scientists thought they were being objective, and later it became obvious that they were allowing their social and cultural prejudices to taint their work.
Evidence please.quote:
A modernist would say that in general, society is moving toward being more objective and less culturally bias. A postmodernist says that's bullshit and is always trying to figure out what our current biases might be.
My view is that a modernist would hope that, in general, society is moving toward being more objective and less culturally biased (idealism), but realizes that society does have cultural biases (realism).quote:
A postmodernist doesn't throw out the idea of objective reality.
I think some do.quote:
But, like an agnostic is skeptical that we can know the truth about God, postmodernists are skeptical of people being able to percieve reality from an objective perspective. Not to say that some perspectives aren't closer than others, but a postmodernists tries to stay open and try on lots of different hats, so to speak, because they believe that is a better method for getting closer to reality.
But closer to reality by what standard. Do the prophecies of Nostradamous come closer to reality than the scientific method? Postmodernism cannot answer this question, but modernism can. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
