Re: [Wittrs] Hawking (in CHORA) and the Science/Mathematics Establishment
- From: John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 21:47:22 -0400
Han,
Thank you for that. I've read through it quickly and inattentively to
get a "feel" for it but will be trying to read through more carefully
later this week. What I could understand interested me but I should
confess off the bat that, while I am not completely ignorant in such
matters, some of the mathematics is certainly over my head. So, I'll be
trying to understand as much as I can about the relationships between
various equations and theories - often taking your word for it - and
trying to grasp their relevance and conclusions as best I can with such
a partial understanding.
I do grasp the general idea that a later scientific innovation might
actually be deducible from earlier theories, even if no one at the time
thought to make the inference. And I find that a very interesting
historical point. I've recently been discussing elsewhere the
possibility of complementary relationships between Wittgenstein and
Historicist approaches to philosophical problems and this paper
therefore finds a sympathetic ear. But I apologize in advance that my
understanding will necessarily be limited.
Take care,
John
On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 21:40 +0200, Han Geurdes wrote:
>
> John
>
> Agreed. Please read my paper on arXiv about this confusion in
> phsyics.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3348
>
> This stresses the need for philosophy of physics. Because if,
> mathematicall, Dirac's quantum relativistic equation is intrinsic in
> Einstein's gravity field equations, then this represents a breach with
> the usual interpretation of classic and quantum physics. It
> negates prof. Hawking's point of view about the observational basis of
> phsycis and asks a question about the grammar of the 'languages' of
> classical and quantum physics.
>
>
> On 28 May 2011 17:51, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 01:55 -0400, Osher Doctorow wrote:
> >
> > My favorite writer John Le Carre (at least, during his
> "Smiley" period
> > of writing - his latest books are not comparable to those)
> or John
> > David Cornwell as he is really named, is implicitly the most
> > Anti-Bureaucracy philosopher in fiction of the last 60
> years.
>
> If you are not familiar with it, the British sitcom, "Yes,
> Prime
> Minister", nee "Yes, Minister", is also a depressing (but
> amusing) look
> at the civil service and the narcissism prevalent therein.
> I'd highly
> recommend it!
> >
> > There is a similarity between Le Carre's criticism of
> Political
> > Bureaucracies and my criticism of the
> Science-Engineering/Mathematics
> > Establishment Bureaucracy. The recent attacks on Philosophy
> by Hawking
> > are only a symptom of what appears to be a general
> devaluation of
> > outsiders by Bureaucrats. It is also common in the Health
> field
> > (Medicine, Nursing, Medical Social Work, etc.) and even the
> Military
> > field and Legal(Law) field.
> >
> > What are the Motivations of Bureaucrats in all of the above
> fields?
> > Here are my candidates for their Motivations:
> >
> > 1. "My Career Only" orientation.
> > 2. "Me Only" orientation.
> > 3. "My family or relatives only" orientation.
> > 4. "My power only" orientation.
> > 5. "My pleasure only" orientation.
> >
> > I summarise 1-5 above as "Power-Crazy Hedonism" more or
> less.
> >
> > There are certain TECHNICAL aids/supports which promote 1-5
> above:
> >
> > 6. Use of a language that most people in the nation in
> question have
> > difficulty learning - such as legalese, groupthink or
> groupspeak,
> > un-summarised or untranslated quantitative language (into
> English for
> > example, even approximately or "roughly")
> >
> > 7. The tendency of some Philosophers of Science to imitate
> physical
> > scientists or accept their theoretical claims without
> examining
> > contradictions, anomalies, paradoxes, lack of clarity, even
> lack of
> > overt definitions.
>
>
> This reminds me of an excellent article by the noted
> Wittgensteinian,
> Peter Hacker, who is a philosopher not so shy about
> challenging
> "authorities".
>
> http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Relevance%20of%20W%
> 27s%20phil.%
> 20of%20psychol.%20to%20science.pdf
>
> Here are his concluding remarks:
>
> Wittgenstein is sometimes criticized for being a
> philosophical
> quietist. Nothing could be
> further from the truth. For he gave philosophy a license to
> criticize
> scientists. He showed why
> philosophy has a right to interfere with empirical sciences –
> for its
> role is as a conceptual critic.
> Philosophy is a tribunal of sense, before which erring
> scientists can be
> arraigned for transgressing the
> bounds of sense. They can be arraigned, not by criticizing
> them for
> deviating from ordinary usage –
> which deviations may be wholly innocuous – but for invoking
> ordinary
> usage and then misusing the
> terms invoked, through misunderstanding and conceptual
> confusion.
> Philosophy is no policeman, but
> an impartial judge. Scientists must be condemned out of their
> own mouth
> – by demonstrating the
> incoherence of their assertions. It is not the task of
> philosophy to
> sing the Hallelujah chorus to
> science or to police its pronouncement. It is rather to
> identify
> conceptual confusions that are rife in
> science, and to eradicate the scientific myth-making, no less
> than the
> anti-scientific myth-making, that
> is endemic in the culture in which we all live today.
>
>
> >
> > 8. The tendency of non-scientists or non-specialists in the
> above
> > fields to WORSHIP scientists, lawyers, medical doctors,
> politicians,
> > and so on.
> >
> > I do not have time at present to go deeper into each of the
> above
> > factors or provide more examples, but hopefully I will be
> able to
> > consider that later.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Osher Doctorow
> >
> > Messages to the list will be archived at
> > http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wittrs mailing list
> > Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
> Topic
> Messages in this topic (4)
> Recent Activity:
> * New Members 1
> Visit Your Group
> Yahoo! Groups
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
