Re: path-dependence: a philosophical issue concerning time

"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I have no regrets in informing you that Nature is not a democracy;
terms such as "standard" and "consensus" in discussions such as this
(a philosophical issue concerning time) carry zero weight.

You are not "informing" me, but only conveying your personal
belief. Also, my point was not about "nature", but about science. It is
my belief that the current scientific consensus provides a foundation in
terms of which research is carried out, whether to challenge it or build
upon it. This consensus is usually taken to be truer than views held in
the past. It's not a democracy, but an oligarchy. Are there aspects or
implications of this that are problematic? Of course.

On what do I base this belief? Well, I'll not cite any standard textbook
on the philosophy of science, for if the consensus conveyed in it is as
irrelevant as you suggest, then what would be the point? If your aim is
to disconnect yourself from any community by refuxing any commonality,
how can you expect to communicate meaningfully about anything?

I won't trouble to address your unsupported expressions of personal
opinion because without some appeal to what lies beyond your private
life or ego, your personal opinion is uninteresting and of little
significance. I do appreciate that there's an ideological position that
would reduce society to autonomous atoms and insist on the prevalence of
individual private interests over any authority or social values, but I
don't happen to find it appealing, for I don't happen to be a member of
that class.

You've just attempted argument from authority and argument from
internal conviction. I am not a sheep to bleat "baa" simply because
the other sheep do, I am capable of independent thought.

To pose my question, I had to provide a conventional framework so that
it might be discussed. If you reject that framework, you reject the
legitimacy of my question rather than kindly offer a critical reply as
requested.

You quote Asimov, but why did you trouble to do so if we are reject any
view as authoritative? What he says in your view should be irrelevant,
just a worthless personal opinion.

I posed a question that rested on some conventional axioms. You respond
by suggesting that no axioms have justification because you reject the
social basis for them and they are nothing more than private
opinion. This only serves to deconstruct my question and is obviously
not helpful; it seems more an inability or refusal to enter any kind of
positive social relation.

That you are capable of independent thought (although you choose not to
provide any evidence for it) I assume is true, but also it is
irrelevant.

To enter into a social relation, such as a debate, you have to want and
be able to have a social relation. An inability to share common ground
with others reduces social relations to violence.

There cannot be a record of the past that is entirely the same as the
past.

Why not? Our knowledge of the past, our ability to read the record, is
subject to interpretation; the record itself is accurate.

Nope, sorry to disagree again. Since you accept no opinion as having any
authority, I'd have to argue the case from scratch, which I could do
at length, but why should I trouble to do so? This is a serious
question that you should think about for your own good. But it would be
off topic here.

It is a fact, easy to demonstrate, that most historians view their
evidence as traces of the past that are not only neither pristine nor
complete, but necessarily represent only one aspect of the past, its
reduction to empiria. Further, such traces in themselves are
meaningless, and we are compelled to construct facts about the past so
that they might support reasoned argument. Although old, readable on
this subject is Edward Carr, What is History?

Another approach is that of multiple worlds theory, which assumes
there's an unlimited number of parallel universes, but since only one
world can be indexed by us, all these parallel worlds must be
displaced in a way that can't be indexed, and this non-referential
existence is time displacement.

If you want to argue the point, present the evidence. -- Asimov.

I'm not arguing the case, and actually I don't happen to agree with
it. Besides, to discuss it would be another diversion from my original
question.

You cite that prolific science fiction writer and popularizer who wrote
long ago (in relation to the development of opinion) as an authority?
But I thought you rejected all all authority.

--

Haines Brown, KB1GRM



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... that he cares to speak. ... certainly does not entitle him to standing as an authority on those ... (in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Richard Heathfield: enoughs enough
    ... >> Richard, you are attempting, with no qualifications and no university ... In fact, reading the thread, it's pretty obvious whose opinion is ... > that an opinion is necessarily true because that authority supports it. ... Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, Nilges has clearly decided that, if he ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Gates of Hell Swing Open Wide
    ... You have appealed to misplaced authority based on five ... I spent 30 seconds Googling, ... There is no reason to believe his opinion is worth anything more ... plus that of a San Diego law professor. ...
    (soc.motss)
  • Re: Oxford English pronunciation
    ... Hi Tim, ... RP makes you sound as if you work for the BBC World Service ... And when I have I ever presented myself as an authority on ... You've just got this idea that because I add my opinion, ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)