JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FRIENDSOFWISDOM Archives


FRIENDSOFWISDOM Archives

FRIENDSOFWISDOM Archives


FRIENDSOFWISDOM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FRIENDSOFWISDOM Home

FRIENDSOFWISDOM Home

FRIENDSOFWISDOM  May 2006

FRIENDSOFWISDOM May 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Science and Wisdom-Inquiry

From:

ian glendinning <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 31 May 2006 01:24:38 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (137 lines)

Ha, Karl, isn't e-mail wonderful ?

I was being lighthearted with the smiley emoticon :-) because I
thought your New-agey" criticism was genuinely gentle joshing. No
apology remotely required. In fact quite the opposite - many thanks
for your comprehensive considerations ...

... I'll take the rest of this thread off-line unless someone else pipes up.
Ian

On 5/31/06, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
> I was not trying to be perjorative. Sorry if it came across like that. I
> guess that I have become quite jaundiced about the "New Physics" cultural
> movement over the years.
> Please forgive me. I did not mean to appear at all dismissive. The problem
> is that I tend to react about it in the same way that an ex-Catholic Priest
> would, who gave up his robes and faith many years ago, in order to adopt a
> different and secular way of life, would react to someone using ideas from
> Catholic theology in order to demonstrate some plausibility about truths
> that are already completely outside mainstream Catholicism.
>
> My problem -- and it is my problem, not yours -- is that I am so sceptical
> about hard nosed, mainstream physics that ideas that appeal to quantum
> physics and relativity tend to hit a brick wall with me. I end up being
> critical of the appeal to evidence and theory, rather than concentrating on
> what the ideas are. You see, as far as I am concerned, the ideas are often
> more acceptable to me than the use of science as a justification for those
> ideas. For example, I tend to find this happens in a lot of environmental
> philosophy. Some writers appeal to particularly strained or radical
> interpretations of the results of quantum theory to support their case for
> living a more interconnected and harmonious existence within the natural
> world. While I completely agree with their conclusions, I end up completely
> at odds with these writers because not only do I think that they
> misunderstand the science they use, fail to acknowledge the degree that it
> is implicated in a profound confrontation between technology and the natural
> world, but that they really do not need to use science to get to where they
> want to go. It is possible to achieve these conclusions without appealing to
> modern physics.
>
> Arne Naess for example, (a Norwegian philosopher and environmental activist)
> used a combination of logical linguistics and Gandhi's philosophy to develop
> a system of ordering our value-statements in a heirarchical structure, with
> self-realisation at the top, in order to show how it is in our rational
> self-interest to live harmoniously in the natural world and our societies.
> Not a word about quantum physics. Excellent stuff!
>
> It may well be of interest to note that Schroedinger and Heisenberg were
> very influenced by the transcendental phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. It
> seems to me that many of the conclusions regarding the interconnectedness of
> consciousness, intentionality, and the mediation of evidence, fit much more
> squarely within Husserl's system than they are derivable from quantum
> theory. There is still quite a movement (largely within Germany and the USA)
> to develop natural science based on Husserl's phenomenology and the radical
> re-evaluation of rationality and science that it calls for. Husserl was
> highly critical of positivistic science and his aim was to develop a much
> more meaningful and unfied system for scientific knowledge based on
> transcendental consciousness.
>
> To be honest, there is much about postmodernism that I completely affirm
> (especially its criticisms of rationality and science) and there are also
> many aspects of New Age philosophies that I think are simply delightful, but
> when they start using quantum theory to show the interconnected
> consciousness of all being and intersubjectivity of reality, often adopting
> an extreme relativism or idealism, then they loose me because they actually
> do not need to use quantum theory or relativity to do this, and, mores to
> the point, they would not accept the methodological foundations and
> constraints of the experimental work that lead to the results of quantum
> mechanics and relativitistic measurements that they use. They would never
> accept the methodological basis for the construction of experiments such as
> the Stern-Gerlach experiment, but they will take the interpretation of its
> performance in terms of abstracts such as spin-states and non-locality as
> being an objective basis for their intersubjectivity and anti-objectivity!
>
> I suspect that I am not explaining myself at all well. I appreciate that
> there are many ideas, especially around chaos theory and non-linear systems,
> which have lead to an extremely healthy debate and criticism about the
> modernist understanding of rationality, from within the scientific
> community. It was for this reason that I was particularly taken with the
> statement:
>
> "...real human enterprises succeed or fail through subjective, chaotic, and
> seemingly irrational behaviour."
>
> I really would like to discuss this statement further because if it is true
> then everything is a matter of happenstance, and whether you enjoy the ride
> is a matter of luck. In my view, this statement, similar to ones that can be
> found in the writings of many philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Nietzche,
> sets down the opposition to the call for wisdom. The crucial difference is
> that Heraclitus and Nietzche would not have felt the need to use the word
> "seemingly" in this statement. In other words, if this statement is right,
> then the wisest thing that we can do is stop wasting time seeking wisdom.
>
> I think that this statement is an important starting point for a
> philosophical statement about wisdom and education. We need to show that it
> is false and that objective, orderly, and seemingly rational behaviour is
> not only possible, but is desireable in order to increase our chances of
> living a good life.
>
> As you say, our task is to find "the right kind" of rationality.
>
> Karl.
>
> p.s.
> Please feel free to email about Einstein, privately or on this list, as you
> wish. However, the problem is that Einstein's views changed quite
> considerably throughout his life. He had quite a different view about
> physics in his early career than when he was involved in the debates with
> Bohr about the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory. And, a different
> view still in his later work on unified field theory. He made many
> inconsistent statements throughout his life, for example, he considered the
> aether to be obsolete in his early work on relativity, but lamented the lack
> of a theory of the aether in his later writings because he considered that
> it was quite necessary for something like the aether to exist in order to
> make the vibration of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum intellgible.
> (Incidently, Dirac also expressed similar views and tried to develop a
> theory of a sub-quantum flux as a replacement for the aether.) I am most
> familiar with the work of the young Einstein (of Brownian motion,
> photoelectric effect, and relativity fame) because I am interested in the
> experimental and measuremental aspects of physics. It seems to me that the
> young Einstein was an empricist, the middle aged Einstein a realist, and the
> old Einstein was a unified field theorist and theologican. Eeven though I am
> familar with his early work and I have read some of his writings around the
> Neils Bohr debate, I have only a few historical commentaries on his latter
> work and I am not particularly well placed to discuss the details of his
> views on the anthropic cosmological principle. Given that you are clearly
> interested in this, you are probably much more knowledgeable about this
> later phase of Einstein's life than I am.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New
> Yahoo! Mail.
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
May 2011
April 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager