Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
This is almost humorous, but it is too close to the current reality.
Quote:After the Fact In the history of truth, a new chapter begins.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/0...d-of-facts
… "Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, fundamentalism and postmodernism, the religious right and the academic left, met up: either the only truth is the truth of the divine or there is no truth; for both, empiricism is an error. That epistemological havoc has never ended: much of contemporary discourse and pretty much all of American politics is a dispute over evidence. An American Presidential debate has a lot more in common with trial by combat than with trial by jury, which is what people are talking about when they say these debates seem “childish”: the outcome is the evidence. The ordeal endures.
Then came the Internet. The era of the fact is coming to an end: the place once held by “facts” is being taken over by “data.” This is making for more epistemological mayhem, not least because the collection and weighing of facts require investigation, discernment, and judgment, while the collection and analysis of data are outsourced to machines. “Most knowing now is Google-knowing—knowledge acquired online,” Lynch writes in “The Internet of Us” (his title is a riff on the ballyhooed and bewildering “Internet of Things”).” …
… "People who care about civil society have two choices: find some epistemic principles other than empiricism on which everyone can agree or else find some method other than reason with which to defend empiricism. Lynch suspects that doing the first of these things is not possible, but that the second might be. He thinks the best defense of reason is a common practical and ethical commitment. I believe he means popular sovereignty. That, anyway, is what Alexander Hamilton meant in the Federalist Papers, when he explained that the United States is an act of empirical inquiry: “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” The evidence is not yet in.”
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
With the Internet come the poseurs. People with a cranky and specious set of beliefs, whether Afrocentrism or Holocaust denial, can get their ideas disseminated as they could never be in the academic press or even mainstream media. Plug Holocaust denial at any mainstream newspaper and you will be cast out the door fast.
People have to become their own gatekeepers to guard against patent nonsense and recognize that some bits of knowledge aren't particularly useful, and at that we are ill-trained. Many of us simply do not care. If it titillates, so much the better.
I have no idea of how many people are at the level of consciousness typical of the supermarket tabloids. Of course those tabloids tell people what they want to know -- heavily about entertainment. That is a very low level. It does not fact-check.
...What is the real difference between data and fact, anyway? Data is something to draw conclusions from. For this there are statistical devices to establish the validity of potential conclusions. But such is college material easily evaded by college students not in the sciences or in activities adopting scientific tools (like economics and sociology). Facts are conclusions or observations.
A lesser item is a factoid. Thus that David Irving claims that the Holocaust did not happen is a factoid -- something that says more about David Irving than about the reality of the Holocaust. So I can say as truth that David Irving says the Holocaust never happened without stating that the Holocaust did happen. If you know nothing about David Irving then you are in no way harmed. If you accept what he says as truth -- egad!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2016, 11:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: With the Internet come the poseurs. People with a cranky and specious set of beliefs, whether Afrocentrism or Holocaust denial, can get their ideas disseminated as they could never be in the academic press or even mainstream media. Plug Holocaust denial at any mainstream newspaper and you will be cast out the door fast.
People have to become their own gatekeepers to guard against patent nonsense and recognize that some bits of knowledge aren't particularly useful, and at that we are ill-trained. Many of us simply do not care. If it titillates, so much the better.
I have no idea of how many people are at the level of consciousness typical of the supermarket tabloids. Of course those tabloids tell people what they want to know -- heavily about entertainment. That is a very low level. It does not fact-check.
...What is the real difference between data and fact, anyway? Data is something to draw conclusions from. For this there are statistical devices to establish the validity of potential conclusions. But such is college material easily evaded by college students not in the sciences or in activities adopting scientific tools (like economics and sociology). Facts are conclusions or observations.
A lesser item is a factoid. Thus that David Irving claims that the Holocaust did not happen is a factoid -- something that says more about David Irving than about the reality of the Holocaust. So I can say as truth that David Irving says the Holocaust never happened without stating that the Holocaust did happen. If you know nothing about David Irving then you are in no way harmed. If you accept what he says as truth -- egad!
The factoids and extreme views are fairly easy to sort out and are not usually the problem. There can be difficulty in communicating when two sides look at the same data and reach different conclusions, without realizing that their worldviews are determining their conclusions, not the facts.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
The issue is that there are no context-free facts, all information is understood ONLY though interpreting them though cultural and ideological lenses. One of the big reasons Postmodernism took off was because of the realization by intellectuals that what is often considered "neutral" or "apolitical" is in most cases just a dominant cultural mindset or ideology being taken as "just the way the world is". Marx famously argued this in terms of political assumptions (an idea later expanded upon by Antonio Gramsci), but it took mid and late 20th century thinkers to logically extend this to other areas. I suspect that the increasing development and growing economic importance of non-Western countries has helped encourage this philosophical shift.
The Marx connection, unfortunately, has become the source of a lot of ridiculous conspiracies about "cultural Marxists" that have become seen as self-evident truth among the Alt-Right folks, who thinks any connection to "evil commies" makes an idea automatically wrong...
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2016, 03:36 PM)Odin Wrote: The issue is that there are no context-free facts, all information is understood ONLY though interpreting them though cultural and ideological lenses. One of the big reasons Postmodernism took off was because of the realization by intellectuals that what is often considered "neutral" or "apolitical" is in most cases just a dominant cultural mindset or ideology being taken as "just the way the world is". Marx famously argued this in terms of political assumptions (an idea later expanded upon by Antonio Gramsci), but it took mid and late 20th century thinkers to logically extend this to other areas. I suspect that the increasing development and growing economic importance of non-Western countries has helped encourage this philosophical shift.
The Marx connection, unfortunately, has become the source of a lot of ridiculous conspiracies about "cultural Marxists" that have become seen as self-evident truth among the Alt-Right folks, who thinks any connection to "evil commies" makes an idea automatically wrong...
Good points. I was not familiar with Antonio Gramsci.
Thanks
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2016, 04:58 PM)radind Wrote: (05-16-2016, 03:36 PM)Odin Wrote: The issue is that there are no context-free facts, all information is understood ONLY though interpreting them though cultural and ideological lenses. One of the big reasons Postmodernism took off was because of the realization by intellectuals that what is often considered "neutral" or "apolitical" is in most cases just a dominant cultural mindset or ideology being taken as "just the way the world is". Marx famously argued this in terms of political assumptions (an idea later expanded upon by Antonio Gramsci), but it took mid and late 20th century thinkers to logically extend this to other areas. I suspect that the increasing development and growing economic importance of non-Western countries has helped encourage this philosophical shift.
The Marx connection, unfortunately, has become the source of a lot of ridiculous conspiracies about "cultural Marxists" that have become seen as self-evident truth among the Alt-Right folks, who thinks any connection to "evil commies" makes an idea automatically wrong...
Good points. I was not familiar with Antonio Gramsci.
Thanks
No problem!
IMO a good response to people who think science is somehow inherently apolitical and free of ideology is how "race science" nonsense was accepted as valid science for so long. This is why I am so skeptical of "Evolutionary Psychology", because it is more often than not used by right-wing polemicists to justify traditional cultural norms and traditional gender roles as "human nature" in much the same way early 20th Century "race science" was used to justify white supremacy.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
05-16-2016, 07:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2016, 07:10 PM by Mikebert.)
(05-16-2016, 11:49 AM)pbrower2 Wrote: ...What is the real difference between data and fact, anyway?
[Mike] Fact is a component of knowledge. Data is the raw material from which facts can be derived.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2016, 03:36 PM)Odin Wrote: The issue is that there are no context-free facts, all information is understood ONLY though interpreting them though cultural and ideological lenses. One of the big reasons Postmodernism took off was because of the realization by intellectuals that what is often considered "neutral" or "apolitical" is in most cases just a dominant cultural mindset or ideology being taken as "just the way the world is". Marx famously argued this in terms of political assumptions (an idea later expanded upon by Antonio Gramsci), but it took mid and late 20th century thinkers to logically extend this to other areas. I suspect that the increasing development and growing economic importance of non-Western countries has helped encourage this philosophical shift.
The Marx connection, unfortunately, has become the source of a lot of ridiculous conspiracies about "cultural Marxists" that have become seen as self-evident truth among the Alt-Right folks, who thinks any connection to "evil commies" makes an idea automatically wrong...
Of course there are context-free facts, typically mathematical and physical laws, biographical data, and some historical realities. There are conventions that only fools break. One does not have the choice of whether one goes south or north on Interstate 65 in Louisville, Kentucky to get to Indianapolis or on whether Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809.
Political and aesthetic values are subjective. The only objective judgments on politics are of efficacy; the objective judgments on art are of competence of execution. I have seen people praise murderous dictators, which I could never do; I consider murder unconscionable.
Whether one would rather listen to a recording of Oscar Peterson or to one of Van Cliburn playing the piano is a matter of taste. Or, for example, Bouguereau or Malevich.
I cannot speak for Marx or Gramsci. Objective reality and needful conventions exist. One cannot reshape reality to fit the desires of some person at a certain time. Orwell warns us in 1984 that words have meanings lest we be unable to think, let alone communicate.
Can a Marxist accept that gravitation is genuine, that 6+ 5 = 11, or that that Julius Caesar was a real person, or that Antarctica is mostly covered in ice? I would think so. To believe otherwise would be either gross folly or madness.
Non-Western countries? Does anyone think rationality strictly a characteristic of Western civilization?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
