Jokers to the Left. Clowns to the Right. Fools in the Middle.

Sunstone · Oct 15, 2019

PureX said:
...that isn't what relativism means. What it means is that we are all biased by our own criteria for assessing the 'validity' of a given proposition. Not equally biased, but in most if not all cases, profoundly biased.

Jeebers. I have seldom seen more shameless BS. Why don't you just stop making up stories about what "relativism" means. You're worse than Lyotard.

PureX · Oct 15, 2019

lewisnotmiller said:
Biased and equivalence are completely different issues though. I can acknowledge bias, but still see something as 'more' true than something else, even whilst acknowledging truth as a concept rather than a reality.

I agree that there is 'more true/less true'. The problem is that we can't tell the difference because our criteria is limited and biased by whatever method we use to establish and activate it.

lewisnotmiller said:
Perhaps a different approach would be more fruitful then.
What do you see as the difference between 'relativity' in general terms (about which we broadly agree I think) and epistemic relativity as a more specific concept?

In general, there is no escaping the relative nature of the human (cognitive) condition. Within the many various reasoning systems we humans choose to engage in, however, the conclusions we derive about what is 'good, right, and true' are quite viable. Not so from one system to another, though.

Sunstone · Oct 15, 2019

Guitar's Cry said:
There's this guy: Richard Rorty - Wikipedia

"Relativism" is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.' From: Relativism - Wikipedia under views and Richard Rorty.

I'm old enough to recall the buzz when Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was published in the late 70s or very early 80s. Quite a stir. I believe Rorty did not refer to himself as a "pragmatist", but rather called himself a "new pragmatist" or "neopragmatist". GC, I think Rorty was not being entirely accurate when he said no one goes around saying every belief is as good as every other belief.

For instance, Laurie Calhoun, who is a postmodernist philosopher, was once asked if it was a fact that giraffes were taller than ants. She quite famously replied that it was not a fact, it was rather an article of faith in Western culture that giraffes were taller than ants. In other words, Calhoun was expressing epistemic relativism.

Another case in point was the time that students at the University of Cape Town famously argued that witchcraft was the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics.

I could go on. The point is that some people actually do argue that beliefs are equal.

Stevicus · Oct 15, 2019

exchemist said:
That I think must have been the original insight: that how we communicate, think - and thus even perceive - the world around us is influenced by who we are, our culture and language, etc. There is arguably no such thing as perfect objectivity in human thought, though I suppose maths and logic come close. In many disciplines of thought we go to great lengths to try to be as objective as we can, but we can't ever say we have managed it completely.

But saying we cannot capture reality perfectly, in human perception and expression, does not mean there is no objective reality at all.

I was reminded of a line from an episode of Star Trek TNG where Barclay had been transformed into a super intelligent being. He said "I can conceive almost infinite possibilities, and can fully explore each of them in a nanosecond. I perceive the universe as a single equation, and it is so simple, I understand."

Being able to perceive the universe as a single equation - that seems like it's pretty close to understanding objective reality. But you may have to have some kind of "superbrain" to be able to process it all.

lewisnotmiller · Oct 15, 2019

PureX said:
I agree that there is 'more true/less true'. The problem is that we can't tell the difference because our criteria is limited and biased by whatever method we use to establish and activate it.
In general, there is no escaping the relative nature of the human (cognitive) condition. Within the many various reasoning systems we humans choose to engage in, however, the conclusions we derive about what is 'good, right, and true' are quite viable. Not so from one system to another, though.

Then I suspect whilst both relativists on some levels, we vary significantly in our beliefs on comparison and analysis of relative truths.

Shadow Wolf · Oct 16, 2019

PureX said:
Or perhaps you spend too much time conversing with idiots.

Perhaps you spend too much time not listening to those around you? Or perhaps you don't get out and meet a good variety of people? I don't know, but it is a thing that gets thrown out by people who actually believe it, often times, and living a sheltered life is, as far as I can tell, the only way to really avoid it.

PureX · Oct 16, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
Perhaps you spend too much time not listening to those around you? Or perhaps you don't get out and meet a good variety of people? I don't know, but it is a thing that gets thrown out by people who actually believe it, often times, and living a sheltered life is, as far as I can tell, the only way to really avoid it.

... And the people who actually believe it are NOT relativists. You seem to keep sliding past this part.

Shadow Wolf · Oct 16, 2019

PureX said:
And the people who actually believe it are NOT relativists

Yeah, actually they are. Like moral relativists who believe all morals are equally valuable and worthy of upholding because they vary from one culture to another. Clearly, however, not all cultural values, norms, and morals are valuable, good, or worthy of upholding.

PureX · Oct 16, 2019

Sunstone said:
I'm old enough to recall the buzz when Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was published in the late 70s or very early 80s. Quite a stir. I believe Rorty did not refer to himself as a "pragmatist", but rather called himself a "new pragmatist" or "neopragmatist". GC, I think Rorty was not being entirely accurate when he said no one goes around saying every belief is as good as every other belief.

For instance, Laurie Calhoun, who is a postmodernist philosopher, was once asked if it was a fact that giraffes were taller than ants. She quite famously replied that it was not a fact, it was rather an article of faith in Western culture that giraffes were taller than ants. In other words, Calhoun was expressing epistemic relativism.

Another case in point was the time that students at the University of Cape Town famously argued that witchcraft was the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics.

I could go on. The point is that some people actually do argue that beliefs are equal.

Out of the seven billion people currently on Earth, I have no doubt that "some people" argue even the most absurd points at some time or other. This does not negate the fact that overwhelmingly, the only people trying to float this particular absurd idea are the people who are trying to paint their opposition with it. That is: absolutists who are trying to paint relativism with this absurd notion so as to discredit it because they know it's both illogical and wildly counter-intuitive.

Sunstone · Oct 16, 2019

PureX said:
Out of the seven billion people currently on Earth, I have no doubt that "some people" argue even the most absurd points at some time or other. This does not negate the fact that overwhelmingly, the only people trying to float this particular absurd idea are the people who are trying to paint their opposition with it. That is: absolutists who are trying to paint relativism with this absurd notion so as to discredit it because they know it's both illogical and wildly counter-intuitive.

Speculations on your part. I notice you haven't offered up even one single fact in this entire thread in support of your views. No facts. Just speculations.

exchemist · Oct 16, 2019

Sunstone said:
I'm old enough to recall the buzz when Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was published in the late 70s or very early 80s. Quite a stir. I believe Rorty did not refer to himself as a "pragmatist", but rather called himself a "new pragmatist" or "neopragmatist". GC, I think Rorty was not being entirely accurate when he said no one goes around saying every belief is as good as every other belief.

For instance, Laurie Calhoun, who is a postmodernist philosopher, was once asked if it was a fact that giraffes were taller than ants. She quite famously replied that it was not a fact, it was rather an article of faith in Western culture that giraffes were taller than ants. In other words, Calhoun was expressing epistemic relativism.

Another case in point was the time that students at the University of Cape Town famously argued that witchcraft was the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics.

I could go on. The point is that some people actually do argue that beliefs are equal.

Rorty's position does appear to be nuanced (as one would expect from any serious thinker). However the following extract from Bailey's paper is interesting:
QUOTE
Truth as Consensus
We cannot find a skyhook which lifts us out of mere coherence –mere agreement – to something like ‘correspondence with reality as it is in itself’ ... Pragmatists would like to replace the desire for objectivity – the desire to be in touch with a reality which is more than some community with which we identify ourselves – with the desire for solidarity with that community. (Rorty, 1991, pp. 38–39)

Richard Rorty’s equation of objectivity with solidarity is one form of the view that what we naïvely hold to be truth is simply an assertion of which we are subjectively persuaded. Accordingly, truth is not a property of beliefs by virtue of some relation they bear to ‘worldy’facts that stand outside of discursive practice.
UNQUOTE

This seems to me quite absurd. For instance the whole basis of scientific enquiry is a presumption that there are, objectively, patterns in the physical world, or "nature", that enable us to predict how nature will behave, by mean of building models of it. We do not have to claim the models "are" reality, only that nature behaves very much as if they are, enough of the time for us to use them as proxies for whatever reality "really" is.

If the patterns we perceive were merely - per Rorty - expressions of community solidarity, and there were no objective reality underlying them, then our aeroplanes would not fly. Thus I struggle to understand what Rorty is really saying.

@PureX holds a less extreme view of relativism, evidently, which I find uncontentious. It seems to me quite reasonable to say that we humans can never attain complete objectivity and thus all the things we may claim to be truth still actually retain some element of uncertainty.

Guitar's Cry · Oct 16, 2019

Sunstone said:
I'm old enough to recall the buzz when Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was published in the late 70s or very early 80s. Quite a stir. I believe Rorty did not refer to himself as a "pragmatist", but rather called himself a "new pragmatist" or "neopragmatist".

To be honest, I came across him refreshing myself on the finer points of relativism yesterday. (Just don't have time these days to indulge in philosophy like I used to!) Haven't read him myself, but yeah, he appears to be considered a neopragmatist.

Sunstone said:
GC, I think Rorty was not being entirely accurate when he said no one goes around saying every belief is as good as every other belief.

For instance, Laurie Calhoun, who is a postmodernist philosopher, was once asked if it was a fact that giraffes were taller than ants. She quite famously replied that it was not a fact, it was rather an article of faith in Western culture that giraffes were taller than ants. In other words, Calhoun was expressing epistemic relativism.

Another case in point was the time that students at the University of Cape Town famously argued that witchcraft was the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics.

I could go on. The point is that some people actually do argue that beliefs are equal.

I think delving into those cases would suggest that the authors of those arguments had other points than "all beliefs are equal."

For instance, the University of Cape Town students appeared to be arguing in favor of her culture's witchcraft due to the misconception that modern science is ultimately western (which is the same flawed notion white supremacists use). This is from what I managed to find on--mostly biased--internet sources this morning.

What I found about Laurie Calhoun's statement appears to come from an opposing philosopher's book. It appears to be a response to the question of facts being beliefs and I didn't find any value statements in that response. I would be interested in finding out if she made any follow-up statements concerning it.

I would certainly not ascribe to any notion that all facts are equal. I would rather modern physicists tackle an asteroid heading to earth than a witch (though, all the power to them!).

And I would say giraffes are certainly bigger than ants since we define thise things according to particular patterns.

My concept of postmodernism is that after we realized that modernism's dream of technology solving all the world's problems was just a dream, we realized that without cultural bases, each individual is tasked with finding their own foundation to live from. This appears to be misinterpreted by postmodernists and their critics alike as facts don't matter and all things are equal, when really humans thankfully struggle with not assigning value to things.

Jokers to the Left. Clowns to the Right. Fools in the Middle.

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

PureX

Veteran Member

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

Stevicus

Veteran Member

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber

PureX

Veteran Member

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber

PureX

Veteran Member

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

exchemist

Veteran Member

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan