Discussion:
The problem
hibbsa
2013-03-28 13:02:01 UTC
Permalink
The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms
of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events contradiction,
and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host of
rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to make
a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
making the criticism a pointless pursuit.

For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was led
to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and others
engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any intention
whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.

The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands for
'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow about
scientism.

Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
philosophy would stand.

That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works. Criticism
is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that aren't
made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.

Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
it in good faith, when actually that is not true.
Bruno Marchal
2013-03-29 10:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by hibbsa
The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms
of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events
contradiction,
and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host of
rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to make
a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
making the criticism a pointless pursuit.
For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was led
to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and others
engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any
intention
whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.
The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands for
'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow about
scientism.
Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
philosophy would stand.
That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works.
Criticism
is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that aren't
made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.
Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
it in good faith, when actually that is not true.
A good method consists in changing the vocabulary from time to time.
It prevents the useless vocabulary discussions, and many other
rhetorical tricks. It helps keeping the scientific attitude on the
genuine issues.
The problem is that there is a sort of vindication of abandoning rigor
in the philosophical domain, which matches the institutional lack of
rigor in theology that we live since a very long time. People defends
fields, not idea. Science is till prehistorical, and diplomats are
still eliminated, and inter-disciplinarily research is still a pious
wish.

I think that acceptance of criticism, like free-exam, might be a
protagorean virtue. Those who defend publicly such virtues put
themselves in a way preventing them to be able to apply them. Perhaps.

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alan
2013-03-29 12:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by hibbsa
The principles produced by the philosophy are immune to all forms forms
of criticism involving data, evidence, real-world-events contradiction,
and so on. The only acceptible criticism is heavily constrained and
entirely in the hands of the philosophy itself, and there are a host of
rules and priorities that aren't made explicit to people seeking to make
a criticism, which often completely neutralize their whole category of
criticism in the eyes of the adherents of the philosopy, effectively
making the criticism a pointless pursuit.
For example, look at the debate with Steve Push over in BoI. To all
intents and purposes I think he won that debate on the terms he was led
to believe could result in a genuine criticism being landed, should he
prevail. But that wasn't the case. Deutsch, Temple, Forrester and others
engaged Push on his chosen terms, but in reality never had any intention
whatsoever of conceding a major criticism of their philosophy.
The reason was that, if they lost on the implicitly agreed terms, they
could simply back things off to making ever more impractical demands for
'source' material such as specific details of the experiments to be
provided by Push. Then if that didn't work, arguments could follow about
scientism.
Then if that didn't work arguments could follow that ultimately asked
whether he had a better over all explanation of epistemology and
science. And if he didn't, then by the rules of the philosophy, the
philosophy would stand.
That's the reality on the ground of how the philosophy works. Criticism
is effectively massively protected against in explicit ways that aren't
made clear. No effort is made to direct criticism to key points that
need to be broken. It just doesn't happen.
Besides everything else, there's an issue of integrity. Is it honest,
intellectually, to tell someone you are open to criticism, and then
engage with them in the criticism they want to make, implicitly
indicating that if they can establisht their criticism you will accept
it in good faith, when actually that is not true.
What issue are you talking about as far as the debate with Push is concerned? And what arguments were presented that you found satisfactory?

Alan

Loading...