by cofty 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There is no precise, scientific analysis of or in literary theory;
Pistoff the problem is the opposite.
Nobody is arguing that science is the correct tool to investigate literary theory. The problem is when 'pomo' bullshit merchants think they have a valid place in the physical sciences.
huh?
cofty I get the impression that you are a structuralist at heart - by 'evolution is a fact' you seem to mean it is a closed system. please tell me I am wrong - how could I be when you argue against other evolutionists - Ruby
Cofty: I don't understand any of that. Do you want to try again and this time try to be a bit less pomo?
my reply to you: only if you can be a little less postmodern. Indeed you take the biscuit in personifying post-modernity
in your insistence on one timeless TRUTH (do you understand now)
clarification - only mathematicians can claim timeless truth - other categories of the hard sciences do not and cannot and is the reason they postulate theories and models as explanations anticipating that these may be modified, added to or even rejected in the future.
Indeed you take the biscuit in personifying post-modernity in your insistence on one timeless TRUTH (do you understand now) - Ruby
No. It makes your comments even more confusing.
I am a realist. The exact opposite of postmodernism.
listen to some stars singing for a change -
http://bison.ph.bham.ac.uk/~miglioa/M4PR/M4_beta0.html
and here is an alternative perspective to a mathematical universe
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/why-the-universe-just-doesnt-add-up
That's right. That's the argument that Gergen makes (better than I can) that science has been so phenomenally successful at predicting and explaining the world that we can fall into the trap of mistaking the usefulness of scientific discourse for a unique language which gives up a perfect picture picture corresponding to the world in itself. But usefulness and predictive power need not equal correspondence to reality.
(This post is about a day late)
If you take the word "perfect" out of that then we can say that science is describing reality.
It is far more than a useful narrative. Pomo is not even a useful anything.
I like this clip from Feynman about the descriptive power of science. What I also like is his statement that a scientific view of the world need not detract from other views. But I suspect he is wrong. It's hard not to feel that there is something lost when the flower is viewed the way he describes. Different perspectives on the world do exist in some degree of tension with one another. Scientific realism can't help but be reductionist.
slim
Scientific realism can't help but be reductionist
do you really think Feynman is being reductionist? I honestly didn't think so. He acknowledges an important point and raises the issue of whether or not insects may have a sense of appreciation of beauty. We take it for granted that non human forms don't. I tend to agree with Feynman that we need to question this human exceptionalism. Second his viewpoint from science also sees beautiful patterns when the flower is deconstructed.
btw did yo listen to my link of stars singing - adds a whole new meaning to buddhist chanting
Cofty, the positivist.
