Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(53)
-
►
May
(19)
- self-implication
- moral support necessitates moral distinctions
- Beasts of the Southern Wild
- Fourth Grade Journal
- a modest request
- they call it accentuating the differences
- stop being shitty, shitty
- a few things
- Just kill me now.
- how long are we going to keep doing this shit?
- putting my geek culture thoughts to bed
- good things about the Atlantic
- nerd self-mythologizing
- feature, not bug, Hulk
- that was unexpected
- ah, propaganda
- our drug war
- nota bene
- Ms. 21st century
-
►
January
(14)
- it's all fantasy to me
- separated at birth
- because policing the discourse is punk rock
- there are reasons not to go to grad school, but Re...
- difference/disorder
- missed opportunity
- Chinese lobby, Israeli lobby revisited
- It's not about Ron Paul. It's about you.
- taking my medicine department, Dana Stevens editio...
- anonymous commenting
-
►
May
(19)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
6 comments:
Hi Freddie,
Just another new assho...err...reader here to tell you what I think.
Your basic point re: epistemic certainty is right on. The New Atheists really are trying to replace one tyrannical epistemic certainty with another. Despite their talk of skepticism, they don't practice epistemic humility. Which sucks, because as far back as (Plato's) Socrates, the notion of epistemic humility is the most valuable thread in the so-called Western philosophical tradition. It's what gets us everything else.
(This drove me nuts when I studied philosophy -- watching students read about Socratic ignorance, nod along with the text, say "yeah, that's right, that makes so much sense" and think they had Socratic ignorance. But Socratic ignorance isn't something you can read yourself into, or something you can 'understand', or something you can acquire in a weekend. If anything it bears more resemblance to a religious experience or practice. Funny that.)
Sanchez's response was the most coherent, but he went for the cheap shot and missed the point. The assertion that "Because objectivity is a system-relative property, it’s not undermined by the fact of our cognitive limitations", is just wordplay. Yes, we can call what we do 'objective', but the whole point is that our 'objective' conclusions are at best uncertain. Demonstrating that you weren't successful in undermining our ability to use the word 'objective' was boring at best, disingenuous at worst.
So: Please don't take the medicine! And don't take the pile-on so seriously. Blogging is like a reality TV show. The audience doesn't know you. They have no accountability to you. They see a target and hurl shit. Cheer up!
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
Just say no to hemlock.
Phil
I'm cheered! Making that video was part of the cheer-making process.
I discovered your blog through Andrew's link and am grateful for your perspective. You seem sincere in your convictions. Surely everyone recognizes that it is much easier to throw out the occasional snipe in the comments section than to publish a blog. While I do not profess to fully understand this particular discourse, which makes it all the more intriguing to me, I am challenged by your thinking and that cheers me. I have bookmarked your blog and will return to explore your previous posts. Thank you for your openness.
Enjoyed your comments that set off the reactions and your response to the reaction. Everyone is so vested in this subject, wherever they are coming from. Wilkinson and Sanchez are nitpicking and seemed to want to talk about something related so they used your post as starting point.
Post a Comment