From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 13:34:56 GMT
Hi Matt:
> I think you either have a misconception of what Rorty's suggesting, or you
> haven't provided anything that would make "objectivity" look any more
> inviting.
>
> I think misconception because of your locution "solidarity truth."
You call it "locution," I call it "recontextualization," a process you
encourage. :-)
> You
> seem to be almost putting it side by side with "objective truth," as if
> there are two kinds of truth, one based on intersubjective agreement, or
> solidarity, and one on objectivity, your argument thus being that objective
> truth is better than solidarity truth.
My fault for misleading you. I believe there are many kinds of truth.
Maggie mentions "intellectual truth" and "social pattern" truth, for
example. Actually, I find "beauty truth" to be the most convincing. But
that's another story.
> But to argue this way is to either
> misunderstand what Rorty's suggesting or beg the question.
I notice you frequently use the phrase, "beg the question" and I keep
asking myself, "What's the question?" usually finding no answer. Is
there another way you can make your point or at least reveal the
question?
> The reason pragmatists think "objectivity" is chimera is because they can't
> figure out how we are supposed to know when the time is right to call
> something "objectively true." The notion of objectivity rests on the
> correspondence theory of truth. For something to be objectively true, it
> must correspond correctly to the world. But pragmatists, for the life of
> them, can't figure out what that means.
I suggest that if a pragmatist has a heart attack he would quickly find it
objectively true that he'd rather be treated by a doctor than a auto
mechanic. For the life of him, that's not had to figure out.
> All they can figure out is that
> when a theory is logically consistent, agrees with experience, and is
> stream-lined of all superfluous info, those theories tend to work better
> and are more useful for our purposes, and hence, more people agree with it.
You bet. "Agrees with experience" is tantamount to "corresponds."
> To convince pragmatists that "objectivity" is a useful notion you have to
> provide an explanation of what "corresponding correctly to the world"
> means.
Basically it means verify by observation.
> So, when you say Lomborg is being vilified unfairly, I can only take your
> word for it and lament the occurence. His research should be taken
> seriously and tested by other people so there is corroboration on his
> research: that's how science works. To say that, "This episode cannot help
> but remind me of the persecution of Galileo by the solidarity of the Roman
> Catholic Church and other instances in history where solidarity truth was
> not only wrong but engendered cruel treatment of individuals who dared
> question the reigning groupthink," clearly begs the question by positing
> that Galileo had found the truth.
Let's see. The question must be, "Did Galileo get closer to the
pragmatic truth than the Church?" I would answer "Yes." Wouldn't you?
> If it doesn't (as I don't think it
> should considering we've moved far beyond Galilean physics and astronomy),
> then it is simply a case of an institution unfairly silencing an outside
> voice. Pragmatists can still say that the Catholic Church and the Ministry
> of Truth unfairly silence voices. One of the supreme ideas that
> pragmatists rally around, holding hands in solidarity, is the idea of the
> marketplace of ideas, and thus democracy. I can't see that you've provided
> anything that undercuts that interpretation.
My question to you boils down to: "Is it possible for a single individual,
acting alone, to discover a pragmatic truth?
Thanks.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 13:46:24 GMT