Scientism.

I agree with this repost. But it also shows the problem that is perpetuated in a certain type of philosophical mode: Philosophy is still stuck in the either /or mode. But because this is always the case, because people in order to make careers and identities must take a position that automatically creates a certain polemic by which other people can argue against and state their position and doubts and reasons, I merely call this situation real.
The problem with philosophy then is not that there is a scientism or not a scientism or a science equates to this or it doesn’t equate to that or philosophy is dead so it’s not that, etc… The problem is exactly in that it can’t operate without that mechanism in place; indeed this is what François Laruelle calls the ‘prior decision’, and as evidence of what we generally call ‘correlationalism’, despite what Quentin Miellassoux wants to make His idenity work for.

The issue is found in the method itself: “we’re going to argue this and my position is that and let’s see if somehow this common thing that we call human rationality and critical thinking can sort the truth of this whole thing out”. It is not that this method is wrong or incorrect or that scientism is wrong or incorrect or that not scientism is wrong or incorrect or that philosophy as a methodology is wrong or incorrect — The point that I make by pointing out this real method is not that it is incorrect as a method, which is to say as a real method. Where it is wrong is exactly in it’s appropriation of meaning to say that when I point to this category of reality that somehow I am suggesting a better or more true-real route. The point is that there are two irreconcilable routes. And the one route, in particular , the real route, that says that this ubiquitous an Omni present plane of human existence should and must be able to appropriate all discursive meaning unto itself, to thereby appropriate it for its methodology to find solution: it is this assumption that is incorrect. And, it is the notice of that situation that I just described that becomes the basis for a science. It is only scientism when real appropriations are attached to it in a polemical manner. Hence we can talk about facts, and once there is the fact that we can identify we have there by the basis of a science.

The point here is analogous to computers. I presently have not and at no time in my future will I ever have a knowledge of how computers function and how they operate from a mechanistic level. And I have said this before; I emphasize the fact of the matter: I do not, nor have I ever, nor will I ever be able to comprehend the mechanistic mode of computer operation. This is a fact. To argue that somehow I could have or indeed I could if I applied myself in the proper manner is to utterly rely upon a transcendental fantasy. I could say the same thing of refining oil; I will never know how to do that. I will likewise never be able to tell where gold is from geologic structures.

These are facts. For those who don’t admit that they are facts, for those who say that I’m stuck in a certain kind of psychology or my life has granted me a certain attitude upon things, those who would say that I’m subject to a common human psychology that can describe me to my limits and my neuroses and defects, those people are fully invested in real appropriation.

Now again; I am not saying that those appropriations are wrong or incorrect. I am saying that they are real, and that real modes exist within a certain current of meaning that we can identify as an orientation. And that there is another orientation that I call “Not real” that does not reduce to real appropriations.

As another analogy; conventional philosophers would have ot that they can analyze say the functioning of ‘Windows’ platform thereby be able to have access to everything about computers there could possibly be. And because of this one cannot explain to them anything different, because their whole field of view is ‘windows’, and because all of their information and their total experience comes through the windows platform, One cannot explain to them nor use terms specific or indicating enough to be able to prove to them or show them that there is a computer science that has nothing to do with windows. 

But the computer scientists know that Windows is just a superficial horizonal manifestation. 

Think “enders game”, the sci-fi story.  Or even better, Think about or consider how a shaman was selected within a tribal organization. It is not that he made certain arguments to some sort of counsel to thereby lead the group in some sort of spiritual manner. It is exactly because the operative shaman noticed something have a particular person, that this particular person was already evidencing a particular orientation up on things that was significantly different than the rest of the group. 

Anyways-

The REPOST: 
The Folly of Scientism

By Austin L. Hughes The New Atlantis ‘The positivist tradition in philosophy gave scientism a strong impetus by denying validity to any area of human knowledge outside of natural science. More recent advocates of scientism have taken the ironic but  logical next step of denying any useful role for philosophy whatsoever, even the subservient philosophy of […]

Positivism, The New Atlantis, scientism, Austin L. Hughes, rationality, Science

https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/the-folly-of-scientism/

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Scientism.

  1. But again I’m not saying that reality is false or anything like that or that philosophy doesn’t develop good things or intelligent things that it doesn’t find out true real things.

  2. …. Innoway I suppose I’m being strategic in the way I’m thinking about stuff because indeed I’m not thinking about what actually went into the creation of this desk in front of me while I am indeed writing upon it, but in this way I’ve also focus my attention on the facts of being rather than the relativity of transcendental possibility. I don’t propose that one reduces to the other I’m not proposing upon some unilateral Omni present one single true universe. If that makes any sense

  3. The mechanics that got from, say, the machine, the atomic signals of electricity translated into microprocessor signal, into human language, into having that be used to make a phone cal or a webpage, I absolutely will never be able to do that. Never. That’s a fact.

    I think you’re encountering some of your own heuristic boundaries and while having encountered them rather than just being guided by them, you’re treating them as facts.

    I’d say they are not facts – they are potential paths your life could take, but the brain, in making an economy in thinking, dismisses certain facts. After all, neither of us thinks hard about astronaut duties each day, do we? Because we’ve eliminated that path from our thinking – because it’s a waste of the calories required for thinking to think about astronaut duties.

    Or it seems a waste, a fact, anyway.

    1. Yes. In reality all sorts of things occurr in possibility. But i am talking about what is true. I am not reducing one to the other. I’m not saying that reality is condition by a truth other than real truth. But likewise I am saying that what is true is not conditioned by what is real; I suggest that there are two irreconcilable routes upon objects. Yes in possibility in the real world all sorts of things can happen with mind and body and possibility and potentials of other people in my inclusion in this whole realm of world and universe.

      But what is true or what I say is not real, concerns how we may have such conventions and conceptions upon real universes and real world and such things like that.

      If I hit you in the head with a brick we say that’s a fact your face swells up that’s a fact your body has auto immune functions and inflammatory functions that’s a fact you may bleed that’s a fact bones crunch that’s a fact. There is no amount of discursive relativity that prevents such a fact except in as much as we want to create certain conditions about being human in the world. Such conditions I say are real philosophical conventions.

      I’m not talking about some world within this relative real philosophical world of conventional discursive negotiation of meaning. I’m saying that there is indeed a real world that occurs that way and that’s a fact.

    2. There’s a lot to think about in your short comment.

      I simply put it in terms of true and real.

      Science did not arise through some argumentative proposals; somebody did not stumble upon a particular approach upon objects and then argue it into existence philosophically to the point that other people said oh yeah that makes sense.

      In fact there are a whole bunch of people majority of people that were seeing science and would playing out refuse and we’re playing out on able to see science for the thing it was.

      Science a rose because it became apparent to a certain group of people . The activities of science made sense to a minority of people because it made sense not because someone argued or prove to them that it made sense or that it worked.

      This is what I say about the science of being human. It will rise because it makes sense because it’s a parent to those people for whom the science is aparent. What will occur or overtime then is those scientist will just act and behave and conduct experiments in such away because it’s obvious to them that that’s the way it works.

      The whole point of science is that it doesn’t need to be argued. The argument comes from the facts and the experiments upon the facts.

      But just like when science a rose in the renaissance many people did not see the products of science as some sort of fact. They put it in terms of their negotiated mythological reality; and the rules of that reality. God demons magic blasphemy stupidity heresy whatever it is it doesn’t matter.

  4. I do not, nor have I ever, nor will I ever be able to comprehend the mechanistic mode of computer operation. This is a fact. To argue that somehow I could have or indeed I could if I applied myself in the proper manner is to utterly rely upon a transcendental fantasy.

    That seems an extraordinary claim that you couldn’t understand basic semi conductor knowledge (taught in basic electronic courses (which I’ve gone through myself)) and basic logic (ie, application of physical interactions to mimic the stuff we call logic). But it’s a fascinating for being a rare claim – so many people claim to have a capacity, but here you’re claiming an incapacity? I mean, how do people build computers unless they understand some amount of the mechanistic mode of computer operation? And you’re a person – what makes you think you’re special in terms of never being able to?

    If you were just trying to argue ‘Well, I don’t know it now and that is a fact, even if I could theoretically know it in future’, I’d agree. But you’re saying you will never know it – but what if ISIS kidnaps you and threatens to kill you unless you apply yourself to learning then demonstrating solid knowledge of semi conductors and logic? 🙂

    1. I just wrote an essay about this situation of nothing. maybe Ill put it as a post.

      I am using the computer thing as an analogy: I will never understand how to build, say, a smart phone from absolute scratch. I will not be able to know the metallurgy, the physics, electricity, mechanics, programming, etc.. all the knowledge that actually goes into the product the is a cell phone. I simply won’t. The mechanics that got from, say, the machine, the atomic signals of electricity translated into microprocessor signal, into human language, into having that be used to make a phone cal or a webpage, I absolutely will never be able to do that. Never. Thats a fact.

      I mean, I am indeed using the term ‘able’, but I mean it in the sense of ‘will I ever do that’. Not so much about my capacity or intelligence. My capacity and intelligence is always Real. I am not that concerned with the possibility of reality. I am concerned with describing how reality functions.

      I am saying that the truth of the matter is that any particular person will not have children with me. lol. that is a fact. It is not so much based in some limit of physical and temporal possibility, because in this possibility Anything can happen in potential. In reality, anything may happen; I don’t know the future. It may well be that I spend the rest of my life having sex with people and filing adoption papers. Who knows 🙂 But my point is that the absurdity that tempers possibility and impossibility is a religious posture, based in what is effectively, for the thoughtful human being, is God. (for lack of a better term and not in the institutional sense) It does not matter if I am an atheist because the assertion of there being no God is based in the human ability to intuit the truth of things. This intuition always comes from a transcendent clause. Always, even if we propose to suggest how it is not, still, that very proposal of explanation relies upon a transcendental clause: always and forever.

      As long as people ‘think’ that thought can be placed in any context that defies the overt situation of thinking, say like explain it as neural activity, they are in a religious context. They are involved with a ‘relying upon God’, even as they might say that is not the case. They are involved in a ‘believing’ a traditional-mythological discursive context that is axiomatically and automatically founded the ability of terms of discourse to convey actual-real-true things in possibility. As if our conception of such things are universally intact.

      Reality works by people being fully invested in their ‘religion’.

      I am able to admit my absolute limit while understanding that the limit is not a attribute of my real situation. Two irreconcilable routes.

      It is not only my ability or capacity that keeps me from knowing computer mechanics and such, it is also my attitude, lie choices, daily requirement of my time… If I simply do not want to learn computers, that says little about my actual capacity or ability, but nor my choices: my choices are determined at every moment, as TPB says in that essay: “All the way down”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s