The Pope and Condoms

[LonelyPilgrim]

And this is the point in the conversation where the philosophy students get their revenge by confusing the poor saps who haven't studied ontology and epistemology. Anyone care to throw some philosophy of language in there?

[Haunted]

For that fact, on it's own (as much as any single fact can be), I can see where you are coming from. Yes, we can define so-and-so as a hydrogen atom, but to get to this point we need to have seen lots of things and established that there are sufficient commonalities between things that make them different from other kinds of things; different enough to put them together as 'hydrogen atoms'. While the definition is fine, the method by which we decide it fits into that category brings in the issues I related above. And you have to have the assumptions in your method, as they form the difference between 'Hydrogen atoms always have one proton in their nucleus' and 'Wonderflonium only occurs during a crazy random happenstance'. One has meaning because we've decided based on empirical data that it is an explanation; the latter is simply made up, lacking the same empirical grounding.

"Hydrogen" is defined to have one proton. Atoms exist that only have one proton. Therefore they are hydrogen atoms.
Whether or not we can determine if sample X is a hydrogen atom or contains hydrogen atoms, involves some of the assumptions you mentioned (which you could've just shortened down to "inductive reasoning"). It doesn't matter if we cannot determine what is in sample X, a hydrogen atom will always have one proton, that is a truth free from bias or world view.

[LonelyPilgrim]

"Hydrogen" is defined to have one proton. Atoms exist that only have one proton. Therefore they are hydrogen atoms.
Whether or not we can determine if sample X is a hydrogen atom or contains hydrogen atoms, involves some of the assumptions you mentioned (which you could've just shortened down to "inductive reasoning"). It doesn't matter if we cannot determine what is in sample X, a hydrogen atom will always have one proton, that is a truth free from bias or world view.

Why choose to define it by the proton and not the atomic weight of the most common isotope? For that matter, why do we call Hydrogen an atom, when - by definition - it is merely a proton? Because it has an electron, usually? Fine, but what about an isotope that doesn't, is it still an atom? Why?

The manner in which we define things, and the criteria we choose, are indicative of our world view. I'll grant you that there are objective facts, BUT we aren't able to understand them completely objectively and we certainly cannot communicate them objectively.

[Haunted]

Why choose to define it by the proton and not the atomic weight of the most common isotope?

This would be an average. Deuterium and Tritium are the names of the hydrogen atoms with one and two neutrons in the nucleus respectively.

For that matter, why do we call Hydrogen an atom, when - by definition - it is merely a proton?
Because it has an electron, usually? Fine, but what about an isotope that doesn't, is it still an atom? Why?

Without the electron (or with an extra one) it is no longer an atom, it is an ion.

The manner in which we define things, and the criteria we choose, are indicative of our world view. I'll grant you that there are objective facts, BUT we aren't able to understand them completely objectively and we certainly cannot communicate them objectively.

All I am saying is that these objectives exist. They can be determined inductively.

[the Empress]

I wouldn't agrue with the above, but it's still positivism, that evidence can be gathered and the truth can be fully known. In structuralism the truth can only be partly known. In post-modernism there are many truths. The point of these theories is really just to be aware which you ascribe to, and to be honest, I don't really see a problem with holding multiple views depending on what you're looking at (you might be a positivist with re: science, but post-modernist re: language). Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea is an example where positivist views 'scientific truth' of the mine company conflicted with the indigenous worldview, which includes a metaphysical aspect of the mine. So while the mine company would say it doesn't effect the river upstream of the mine, indigenous people would argue otherwise. I would be reluctant to dismiss the validity of the latter worldview merely because it conflicts with positivism; the situation is more complex.

[Haunted]

Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea is an example where positivist views 'scientific truth' of the mine company conflicted with the indigenous worldview, which includes a metaphysical aspect of the mine. So while the mine company would say it doesn't effect the river upstream of the mine, indigenous people would argue otherwise. I would be reluctant to dismiss the validity of the latter worldview merely because it conflicts with positivism; the situation is more complex.

It is still possible to be wrong. Do not insult the human race by suggesting that opinion (aka local conviction) has just as much claim to truth as a scientific approach.

[munchingfoo]

"Hydrogen" is defined to have one proton. Atoms exist that only have one proton. Therefore they are hydrogen atoms.
Whether or not we can determine if sample X is a hydrogen atom or contains hydrogen atoms, involves some of the assumptions you mentioned (which you could've just shortened down to "inductive reasoning"). It doesn't matter if we cannot determine what is in sample X, a hydrogen atom will always have one proton, that is a truth free from bias or world view.

Why choose to define it by the proton and not the atomic weight of the most common isotope? For that matter, why do we call Hydrogen an atom, when - by definition - it is merely a proton? Because it has an electron, usually? Fine, but what about an isotope that doesn't, is it still an atom? Why?

The manner in which we define things, and the criteria we choose, are indicative of our world view. I'll grant you that there are objective facts, BUT we aren't able to understand them completely objectively and we certainly cannot communicate them objectively.

And this is the point in the conversation where the physics and chemistry students get their revenge by confusing the poor saps who haven't studied the structure of the atom. Anyone care to throw some physics language in there?

[the Empress]

I haven't insulted anyone and I haven't said people can't be wrong. Ok Tedi was a complex situation. In fact *you* are dismissing an entire worldview. Considerable damage was done to the environment indigenous people were dependent on and negotiation was stalled by the incapacity of the company to engage with a local culture. It's an example where worldview towards 'truth' caused considerable conflict. My point is, positivism is one way of thinking about the world. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's the model in which physical science operates. Extrapolating this worldview into every situation, with the assumption that there is one 'real' truth which can be known is not always useful nor is it the only valid worldview. I lack the arrogance to make that assumption. Read about the case or not.

Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea is an example where positivist views 'scientific truth' of the mine company conflicted with the indigenous worldview, which includes a metaphysical aspect of the mine. So while the mine company would say it doesn't effect the river upstream of the mine, indigenous people would argue otherwise. I would be reluctant to dismiss the validity of the latter worldview merely because it conflicts with positivism; the situation is more complex.

It is still possible to be wrong. Do not insult the human race by suggesting that opinion (aka local conviction) has just as much claim to truth as a scientific approach.

[Haunted]

Ok Tedi was a complex situation. In fact *you* are dismissing an entire worldview.

Yup. And I dismiss it faster than you will dismiss the world view that I am in command of the worlds cat population and that the 'dark energy' radiating from the internet is directly responsible for anal warts.

Considerable damage was done to the environment indigenous people were dependent on and negotiation was stalled by the incapacity of the company to engage with a local culture. It's an example where worldview towards 'truth' caused considerable conflict.

I could not give two fucks about any conflict that happened. If the mine didn't affect the river upstream, then it didn't affect the river upstream. Simple as.

My point is, positivism is one way of thinking about the world. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's the model in which physical science operates. Extrapolating this worldview into every situation, with the assumption that there is one 'real' truth which can be known is not always useful nor is it the only valid worldview.

Non-sequitar. Usefulness does not affect truthfulness.

[the Empress]

If you apply positivism to everything, then you are assuming you can always know the truth and that there is only one truth. That's not always the case. I'm not on some crusade against physical science. It exists within a particular worldview. Someone stated earlier it didn't. I'm reluctant to go into the Ok Tedi case further, because I have actual work to do. However, it's a case demonstrating the need to consider other worldviews, particularly within development. It' made an impact within the mining field. It relates to earlier arguments about the attitudes of scientists further up this thread . . . .

Also, I don't give two fucks about what you care about.

[munchingfoo]

Whenever I hear the sound of hooves in the UK my first thought is: "shit, who let out the Zebras".

[Humphrey]

Damn those savages and their 'hocus pocus'. This conversation reminds me of that quote attributed to General Napier in British India.

'You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'

General Napier. Not a relativist.

[LonelyPilgrim]

And this is the point in the conversation where the physics and chemistry students get their revenge by confusing the poor saps who haven't studied the structure of the atom. Anyone care to throw some physics language in there?

But, Foo, we've ALL studied the structure of the atom. At least I assume we have. I certainly had to, starting in 6th grade. Advanced Chemistry my sophomore year rounded it out. Point is, we teach everyone about science in our two civilisations (now how much anyone remembers is open to debate) but we almost never put it in its proper philosophical, historical, or sociological context. We only teach half the story, in other words. I guarantee you that if we taught science responsibly on the pre-university level, ie. with philosophy of science and history of science included, we would have less arrogant scientists AND less conflict between religion and science arising from Bible-thumpers who feel threatened by science's universalist claims to knowledge because everyone would understand that physics and metaphysics are NOT mutually exclusive.

But we don't do that. We pretend that science is the epistemological and ontological be-all-and-end-all.

Oh, and Empress, just for the record, I'm a sociological pre-positivist, literary and historical classicist, and an IR social constructivist. And, of course, when it does come to science, in it's proper place, a positivist. Post-modernism can bite me in every field. :-P

[munchingfoo]

hmm...


Could you just give me a quick run down of the definitive knowledge that metaphysics has given our societies?

Answers on a postcard? A postage stamp? An atom perhaps?

[the Empress]

Oh, and Empress, just for the record, I'm a sociological pre-positivist, literary and historical classicist, and an IR social constructivist. And, of course, when it does come to science, in it's proper place, a positivist. Post-modernism can bite me in every field. :-P

I'm not keen on post-modernism myself. I find it frustratingly incomprehensible; it always seems to be chasing itself:) I'm pretty much a positivist with an innate love of statistics. What exactly is a 'sociological pre-positivist' out of curiousity?

[Haunted]

If you apply positivism to everything, then you are assuming you can always know the truth and that there is only one truth. That's not always the case.

Is there such an example of a non-positivist non-scientific (whatever) discovering something real or uncovering some real truth? As far as I am aware, every instance throughout history that something has been attributed to something supernatural or 'non-science' it has been discovered, without exception, to be bullshit.

I'm not on some crusade against physical science. It exists within a particular worldview. Someone stated earlier it didn't. I'm reluctant to go into the Ok Tedi case further, because I have actual work to do. However, it's a case demonstrating the need to consider other worldviews, particularly within development. It' made an impact within the mining field. It relates to earlier arguments about the attitudes of scientists further up this thread.

Blah blah, your still trying to imply that every opinion/'world view' all have some degree of legitimacy. What utter crap.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Empress - it may just be an IR term, but according to the book I took it from:

"Positivism" - we can only understand the world and the human condition through quantifiable statistics because our being trapped in the human condition means we can't be objective any other way!

"Post-positivism" - we're trapped in the human condition so we can only understand the human condition by finding an objective viewpoint, too damn bad there aren't any. Even statistics and measurements have bias. Sucks to be us.

"Pre-positivism" - Um, guys... what's so great about objectivity anyway? Can't we understand the human condition just fine subjectively, seeing as we ARE stuck in it and it is ABOUT us?

[the Empress]

OK, the more I read you're posts Haunted the more I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what the theories I've mention are about. For example, structuralism/postmodernism/positivism are mostly models in which to frame a dialogue; they are not in themselves proving things, although theh make varying assumptions as to the degree something can be proved. They're used alot. How much you've encountered them will depend on what field you're in. If you're in physical science I doubt they're that relevant to you. But they are very important in other fields. They may not explicitly be mentioned, but the author will be operating within some such model. I believe individuals and societies can hold multiple worldviews depending on context, with varying degrees of legitimacy.

To repeat for the final time: Ok Tedi is a complicated case I don't have time to go into, but *gave as an example where refusal to engage with another worldview stalled diaologue*. There are loads of books dealing with colonial history and anthropology which discuss legitimacy and argues this type of case more effectively than I. If this is a topic that interests you, then that's a field to look out.

[edit to be less pissy]

[munchingfoo]

Would you mind providing some sources please? All the stuff I can find on it is about the enviromental impact through normal means (same area or downstream). I can't find data relating to those living upstream.

[the Empress]

The discussion on native beliefs and how it related to the Ok Tedi mine (and subsequent conflict and legal disputes) stemmed from some lectures given by Dr Tony Crook who teaches the anthropology of mining at St Andrews. The part I mentioned upstream stemmed from a lecture regarding his fieldwork (at a time subsequent to the original legal dispute) and the position of anthropolgy (should you interefere? etc.). Therefore I don't think it's a significant part of the Ok Tedi literature. The mine found, logically, no impact upstream so it's doubtful there's a reference within EIA literature. Crook's papers were more generally based on local belief systems, although the original legal dispute around Ok Tedi was brought by an anthropologist to the Australian courts. A further complication for people living upstream regards compensation (oral mythological histories gave them some ownership of the sacred mountain the mine is on) perceptions of the taste of the water, and interference in a scared site. I was thinking about a science versus indigenous belief and how both would need to be considered in a development context. I 'm not an expert on this topic though. It was a bad example on my part, really.