Dave, et al.,
As long as any idea proposed is taken modestly seriously by the proposer, I am interested in it. You are not the only person at the table that speaks of experience beyond experience, so I definitely I have to take it seriously, no matter HOW crazy it drives me.
N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 12:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation
Dave -
As for me, I'm not irritated with your keeping these discussions going.
I *am* irritated with the larger (cross-domain, national/global) discussion of "Truthiness" and the various bimodal fallacies introduced thereby.
Science and the Scientific Method, for example, have built into them a certain kind of contingency which is as absolute as Religion's *lack of contingency* (Absolute Truth). This leads Creationists/PseudoSciencers/AntiSciencers/FlatEarthers/Deniers to use the truism from science "It's just a theory" as a bludgeon to beat out a hole in the conversation to plop down their received-knowledge and/or made-up-shit into, as if it were made of the same stuff as what it is displacing.
Conversely (and I think this is where you are prone to harp), the Establishment (you pick your domain: Science, Religion, Politics, Society and subdomain:Physics/Chemistry/Biology, Ibrahamic/Vedic/Pagan/Animist, Red/White/Blue/Green/Purple, Authoritarian/Libertine/Egalitarian/Anarchic) vs radical/progressive views on the same subjects yields a whole other false-dichotomy.
Yet I often hear these arguments (barely concealed?) in the larger discourse...
I will try to follow this up with some questions/observations about PostModernism and a reflection on the ways it has been "weaponized" by the unlikely? folks like Stephen Bannon?
- Steve
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |