I tend to want epistemology to provide some insight for social change and consequently tend to social epistemology. Ukraine strikes me as a good example of the difficulties. If one takes a line through Socrates (doxa), Bacon (the Idols), Descartes and Nietzsche (rebuilding from radical doubt) and Wittgenstein (bewitching language) most of our "reasoning" is suspect. Science is an exception, but hardly bottoms in epistemology either. Stuff like Ukraine brings lots of questions on many terms we use carelessly like "money". In some ways, questions on whether there is such a thing as an individual in quantum terms relate to how non-neutral all kinds of terms we use are. Rationality, at best, is some kind of bridled irrationality, and imagining any descriptions of the Ukraine are any more sensible that ancient cosmologies seems futile to me. Various groups of lying or deluded bastards are in play, so assuming this one probably needs to examine wider interests, like the fate of we peons and whether we could rid the situation of the 'bastards-field'. One of the most obvious things we don't know is the money-track. Marx did a small piece on how very small lobby interests in the UK got a lot of military money spent destabilising the then Swedish Empire in favour of Russia and lobbyists' trade against the interests of UK trade as a whole. Something similar is at work in Ukraine. Michael Hudson has it that the West is trying to steal the land from under the peons using the usual austerity tactic and loans. We never get much further than realising the loans are ripped-off by oligarchs and clans, though one has to suspect our governments, banks and IMF know the money will be ripped-off and get their own filthy mitts on a big slice. Russia looks like just another vying faction in this. The most obvious thing is that a transparent and honest measurement system (accounting) is missing. It's like running the LHC with data gathering run by creationists who tell us they are communing with god.
On Monday, 26 May 2014 14:38:11 UTC+1, archytas wrote: > > It just serves my imagination to think of you on a white horse with a long > spear Nom, though perhaps the Glaswegian razor fits better with Occam. > Tropical fish realism only goes so far and I doubt any of us are really > philosophical, as you know. No realism works without a load of > "adjustment". I currently like defeasible reasoning, which at least gives > up on 'all swans are white' after a visit to a place with a black swan. > > On Monday, 26 May 2014 03:09:11 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >> >> 'Sir Nominal' ?.... hardly.... I'm just a peon.... or an aspiring >> "bomb-throwing Anarchist", HAR. >> >> I get your point about the "courage" quotient of the so-called political >> rightt as compare to th political left. Can you explain it? Why is there an >> apparent necesary condition imposed that in order to be of the political >> left, "one" must renounce use of force? >> >> Epistemology, I've made my mind up...As you probably have, as well, >> Archytas. There is a difference between a Nominalist like me and a Tropical >> Fish Realist like you... I think I explained it to you. You and I differ as >> to the nature" of the Conceptus... i.e., the Idea,or the "mind-product"... >> a Nominalist holds the Conceptus is Subjective.... whereas a Realist >> holds the Conceptus to be Objective.... I would say that Both Nominalist >> and Realist agree that the Res... i.e., the Physical Matter is Objective . >> >> I would hope that some day I could convince you otherwise, as to the >> "nature" of Ideas.... but, that's up to you to decide.... Maybe if I ask >> you to at least look into the possibility and study the question a bit >> more "empirically" (and not so much analitically) you might see the >> difference. Personally... I have never met a circle....etc. HAR >> >> I've been discussng the Ukraine issue on that other board... RevForum... >> any opinions that you would like to offer on that topic? >> >> >> On Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >>> Thatcher wasn't amiable Sir Nominal. More of a not very good looking >>> tart at a poorly attended stag party. There are few places to actually >>> speak freely. For historic reasons I used to have a drink with the UKIP >>> people and their conversation was much less constrained than in my local >>> Labour club, with much more sensible discussion on racism and immigration - >>> not nearly as snotty as the PC version that was being enforced. Odd. >>> About one in three UKIP members then seemed to be ex-Spitfire pilots. >>> Hard to think of anyone who stood up to the Hun like that as a bigot. >>> >>> I've been thinking of an epistemology based on working one's way out of >>> a trance. It's pretty clear most of what we get told is rot - even the >>> science I was taught at school turned out to be simplistic and half-baked. >>> And there's lots of history like those nasty Germans being responsible for >>> world wars we ;heroes' had to fix. Is that as true as Julius Caesar >>> invading Britain in 53BC (a lie to puff JC) or 1066 being the last invasion >>> of England by foreign troops (so explain the battle of Lincoln in 1217 >>> against the French), or the rousing speech of Good Queen Bess promising to >>> fight with the heart and soul of a man several days after the fighting was >>> over and leaving the poor sods who'd seen off the Spaniards to starve >>> without pay? I'm a bit iffy about working up from the Planck level on such. >>> >>> On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 20:36:13 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Epistemology is important, it is not just theoretical discussion, it is >>>> reflected in things we think and do, and its implications reverberate in >>>> daily life. >>>> >>>> Some people may like certain political or religious dogmas, or they may >>>> set certain principles and present them as truth. Whatever drives them, >>>> they don't want certain things to be discussed. >>>> >>>> Sadly, only a few people appear willing to discuss things here. I am >>>> not sure why this is the case. It may be a technology issue. Google has >>>> taken little effort to improve the functionality and features of groups >>>> over the past few years. The same thing appears to occur at other places, >>>> such as Yahoo. Yet, social media such as Facebook and Twitter are thriving >>>> and have seen enormous growth. Google has responded with Google+, but I >>>> have not yet seen much integration with groups. >>>> >>>> What do others think? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sam Carana >>>> >>>> Cheers Sam Carana, >>>> >>>> ALL THE BEST TO YOU AND TO THIS GROUP.... This is better than "social >>>> media", I think.... >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
