tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2856866532263895903..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Why Chris Schoen is not a rationalistRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90469960655418782772009-05-08T07:40:00.000+10:002009-05-08T07:40:00.000+10:00Russell: after reading this twice and visiting the...Russell: after reading this twice and visiting the blog, I rather think you are correct - this was not intended as academic prose. In short, mate, I think he's pulling your pud! The alternative may be that it is seriously meant and the reason he is not a rationalist is that he is genuinely incapable of rationality. Your choice.....no prize awarded either way.aniknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24967498509183630482009-05-07T20:25:00.000+10:002009-05-07T20:25:00.000+10:00The Ionian Enchantment You yauna you! (Ionia, was...<I>The Ionian Enchantment</I> You yauna you! (Ionia, was not pronounced EE-onia, of cause, it was yown-ya. Like onion is pronounced on-yon. From this pronunciation the Persians (think Xerxes) heard yauna. Something akin to the Turks hearing the Greeks say <I>is tan poli</I> (to/at the city) when referring to Constantinople and thinking this was the name of said City (Quines translation problems might come in here) and so calling that city Istambul (Is-tan-pol(i)) according to their phonetics...........<br /><br /><I>So anyway, I thank him for this. Despite having read it quite carefully, not once but twice, I can't extract from it any overall argument that I find at all convincing, but that's okay.</I> But that's because you're applying your Ionian presuppositions......Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62706510224830227212009-05-05T11:47:00.000+10:002009-05-05T11:47:00.000+10:00"I certainly don't have any conviction to the cont..."I certainly don't have any conviction to the contrary, but that's as far as I'd want to commit myself."<br /><br />Isn't that the basis of rationalism? We can't rationally have convictions about what is true but we can be pretty sure of what isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18957148612294180092009-05-05T09:38:00.000+10:002009-05-05T09:38:00.000+10:00Okay, so you meant that the wording had British-st...Okay, so you meant that the wording had British-style social class associations for you. I'm clear on that now. I must admit that I struggled for quite a while trying to work out how it had anything to do with "the caste system", which is something quite specific.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-23040144712529453512009-05-05T07:43:00.000+10:002009-05-05T07:43:00.000+10:00I'm much too shallow and flippant to be joining th...I'm much too shallow and flippant to be joining this discussion, but I got the impression, based on the content and style of the original Grayling quote that the "caste system" being referred to was the British Victorian one. <br /><br />Becos this Grayling bloke is well out of order, he could be doing wiv updating his ideas that science is only for the upper-claahhrsses, innit?Vicki Bakerhttp://commonplacejournal.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48252459571943693932009-05-05T04:15:00.000+10:002009-05-05T04:15:00.000+10:00Thanks for the reply, Russell.
While I surely (in...Thanks for the reply, Russell.<br /><br />While I surely (in retrospect) could have written more clearly and deliberately on this, and edited out the "puzzling leaps and changes of subject," I didn't really expect the piece to be a one-stop-shop in getting across my view. There's always a fantasy in the back of a writer's mind that one will have the effect of a beloved TV lawyer's closing arguments, perfectly complete and persuasive, but in real life we often have the same arguments over and over, with any real persuasion or mutual comprehension happening in microgradients, at best.<br /><br />I'd prefer, ideally, to zero in on other aspects of the post, than the Grayling citation, which was practically a footnote, but since you specifically address it here, let me respond by saying I did not mean to make a precise comparison between Grayling's rhetoric of prestige and legitimacy with the Indian caste system. The word seemed (and seems) more rhetorically fruitful than calling him a classist, or elitist, especially as these dispositions continue to fade in the West. In the passage I quoted, Grayling does not erect his shibboleth on methodological grounds, but strictly on social associations. The Royal Society is prestigious (we're all supposed to agree) and the religious publishers are "tuppence-halfpenny." The sleeves of "legitimate" scientists are clean and finely made ("respectable"), the hands of the pretenders are grubby.<br /><br />A metaphor, yes, but why this metaphor, and on what justification? Does being "self-published" equate to being crack-potted on some sort of statistical foundation? He doesn't say; it's just a slur. Does a "prestigious" institution like the Royal Academy have some claim to our epistemic trust on the grounds of its illustrious past, or on its dedication to a methodology? <br /><br />It's much easier to dismiss Beale-Polkingham on the grounds of their social pretensions, by suggesting that they don't know their place, (which is the sum of his argument here) than to point out their error in work on philosophical or scientific grounds. I'd be likely to agree with any conclusions so derived, as I mentioned in my remarks.<br /><br />In context, the Grayling cite was supposed to illustrate a point about intellectual humility. His statement on Polkingham-Beale was stuck in my mind as a signal example of the kind of hauteur I was thinking of when I cautioned against treating other people's delusions as so much more ridiculous than one's own. If you click through to the Quodlibeta piece, the writer makes the important observation that "superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago" dismisses out of hand an enormous conceptual apparatus that had an critical influence on the development of our secular notions of justice, democracy, and human rights. <br /><br />In this context, it matters that Grayling chose a stance that had nothing to do with the actual merits of either Polkinghorne-Beale, or the Royal Society, the latter of which he presumes the legitimacy of needs no defense. This is precisely the kind of conceptual blinkering that I set out to analyze in the piece, where metaphysical naturalism is off the table in a way that no other stance can aspire to. <br /><br />It's fine for Blake Stacey, for example, to be happy in this state of affairs, but that's hardly a philosophical defense of its self-evidence. (To Blake I would reply, I think you are ordering your enchantments from an old catalog. Some of the newer models offer many the same benefits--and more!--without the hangover.)Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39475104029766657182009-05-05T02:55:00.000+10:002009-05-05T02:55:00.000+10:00If I were to cast an enchantment upon myself, the ...If I were to cast an enchantment upon myself, the Ionian one would be my first choice. Labouring under that burden would be like being cursed with a life of good wine, requited love and starlight.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11240353062365230082009-05-04T23:43:00.000+10:002009-05-04T23:43:00.000+10:00(cross posted at Chris Schoen's blog)
Hey Chris. ...(cross posted at Chris Schoen's blog)<br /><br />Hey Chris. Just read your post, thought it was beautifully, even melodiously written, and found it a surprisingly pleasurable read for subject matter this recondite. Looking back on it though, I have to say that I was more baffled by it than anything else. Reading it, I had the uneasy sense it wasn't primarily <I>meant</I> as academic prose.<br /><br />Perhaps my bewilderment is best expressed by contrasting to Russell Blackford's response. In that reply, I am able to detect arguments, that presumably may be systematized to desired extent, made intricate - or simplified for children - as appropriate, have detail and nuance added or elided, be agreed or disagreed with. I detect beginning, middle and end, in quite prosaic five para form. <br /><br />Your post by contrast had the tenor of poetry, though perhaps the effect on me is closer to that of ambient music (or plainchant). It seems that examining the argument - assuming that the piece IS intended as a series of arguments - is almost beside the point, that we are really meant to experience - imbibe, soak in - an artistic performance. Checking to see if I agree with particular parts seems something of a piece with wondering if Prufrock has the form of a syllogism.<br /><br />Is this a matter of our laboring under rival "enchantments", or is it deliberate stylistic choice? Is the intent perhaps to wrench the reader discontinuously into a radically different contemplative framework? If the former, have you a for-dummies version of this argument, a possibly misleading but more tractable popsci version? I suspect it'll be easier to proceed to grad seminar Chris Schoen once junior-high C.S. readings are concluded!Dnoreply@blogger.com