John Page

Adrian:

I like the example. I agree that our definition of human beings, walls and motion include a parameter, learned by experience, that we can't pass through walls. At least not properly constructed brick walls.

I'm interested that proofs, in the end, seem to come round to choosing the premises and the definitions surrounding them to tighten up the conclusion.

Maybe giants with hobnailed boots and experience only of wattle walls would disagree. Then we'd have to put a condition that after the "passing through" both human and wall must remain in substantially the same condition. Now I'm starting to sound like a warranty condition!

I'm not sure how to label myself, am I a pure relativist? No, I think that one can establish objective truths given controlled conditions. The sense data stuff troubles me a lot though, that we can relate to each other through a "common reality" and a similar "human condition" implies there is plenty of opportunity to share common delusions... hence my relativistic outlook.

Cheers.

phaedrus

Adrian

Never read Gadamer unfortunately. Much of the stuff I put down in this forum, particularly to do with relativism, as you no doubt can see, is thinking I've done directly on the subject.

I am sure that is what everyone does - offering their own interpretation of a particular issue with the occasional seeking of help from individuals who have done extensive thinking/work on the issue

You suggest its not practical to debate about basic facts, but I would suggest it is most valuable because they are axiomatic, any objective proof regarding the status of basic facts and their objectivity as facts allows the building of a system based on objective truth.

Well I dont see the merit in arguing about basic facts which constitute the knowledge base which could be termed as commonsense. Those facts like we are a species called human beings and that we cease to exist in our current forms after a while due to various reasons/causes. The status of these basic facts which we share as commonsense doesnt really matter when we come to complex issues like the concept of a god or origins of our universe or understanding "consciousness". What we can debate is on the thought systems or value systems and their justification which differ from individual to individual and from culture to culture. For some reason, its not a mechanistic world that we live in where we can find establish causes and effects for each event or issue. It is not black and white and alas we dont live in a mechanistic world, human beings they are complex machines

After all, a relativist is searching for a way to arbitrate between webs of beliefs. If one cannot arbitrate then anything can be said.

The relativist is doing that or is he/she trying to indicate that there is no uniquely privileged view?


This request of yours to get me to attempt to describe an experiment that unites the perceptions of everyone in the world is a bit flawed, as you might argue yourself, this still would not create an objective standard.

Why is it flawed? If you want to discover and establish universal, absolute and objective standards/truths, you should be able to offer atleast a theoretical scenario right?

Regarding your man, water, plane example

Ok, you are able to establish what the man died of using certain standards and process. Now can you tell me how you intend to extrapolate this example to arrive at an universal objective thought system or standards that can be used for arbitration?

My point is, webs of beliefs, however they differ, seem to have to conform to reality to some extent, or else we'd have arguments for the man dying in a lab as dying because of an aeroplane crash.

Then why do you want to debate about basic facts? As said above these basic facts constitute our shared common knowledge of the so-called sane humanity which allows us to co-exist and function as a group.

Now allow me to ask you few questions..

Do you feel that relativism means "everything goes"?

Do you think relativism talks about justification?

Do you think relativists will reject/contradict statements like "Homo Sapiens do not live for ever in the world as we see it?"

Let me state again as to what i think is relativism is all about -

1. There is no uniquely privileged thought system/value system
2. The "worth" of a particular thing or idea or event is dependent on the cultural/linguistic/educational ... grounding.

Do you object to this?

Now coming to your world-as-it-is...and evaluating the "truthness" of thoughts/statements/observations/ideas....How do you propose to get the whole pluralistic world to agree to a universal (applicable to our world) standards? Why will they agree to these standards? Who will set these standards? And those who set these standards..will they be totally objective and free of bias?

........

If we are to talk about practical terms, how do you intend to construct such a system of universal standards by which we can arbitrate statements about reality?

Adrian Selby

A response to your questions Phaedrus.

Does relativism means 'anything goes?'

I think it does. You define it partly as there being no uniquely privileged thought system. I think any thought system that stuck to the basic facts is better than a thought system that didn't. The term 'thought system' is too vague to be of use here though, after all, many competing thought systems might be said to fit basic facts. The relativist cannot arbitrate between a thought system that contradicted statements about basic facts that other thought systems make. To suggest that this contradictory thought system is flawed is to invoke a set of standards open only to the objectivist, because by definition the relativist cannot invoke standards with which to compare thought systems.

Perhaps the dilemma here is bred solely due to not pinning down 'thought system' and its referent. The objectivist can invoke basic facts, such as the aeroplane example, or the brick wall example further up, and defy a contradictory thought system believer to walk through the wall. If the relativist concedes that there are basic facts, why cannot they concede that these can form the basis of arbitration on thought systems and thus provide an objectivist grounding to what can and can't be said.

I think relativism talks about justification, but only with reference to asserting justification is internal to thought systems.

Relativists might not contradict statements about the immortality of homo sapiens, but their's isn't a view on the issue, they are saying that two contradictory views on the issue can't be arbitrated between if the standards for truth and justification differ between systems.

I agree with moral relativism, that the worth of things is dependent on cultures etc. but only insofar as this relates to aesthetics and ethics. However, as I've never given much thought to objective bases for these areas and tended only to focus on epistemological relativism, there might be a contradiction to that I haven't considered, and would welcome comment upon it if contradiction you find

"How do you propose to get the whole pluralistic world to agree to a universal (applicable to our world) standards? Why will they agree to these standards? Who will set these standards? And those who set these standards..will they be totally objective and free of bias?"

Perhaps the enterprise can only be entertained from an objectivist point of view if its entertained solely in relation to epistemological considerations.

If the pluralistic world agrees on basic facts, and that the successful contradiction of these basic facts lies in demonstrating the contradiction, then where such demonstration is never achieved, one can assert the basic facts and the means of testing them as the basis for making statements about the universe. Science is a great candidate for this system, by which I mean the method and the body of knowledge it is defining.

The standards would be set as universal in virtue of the freedom of any to attempt to contradict the standards successfully, the parameters of success being things like walking through walls. When conclusions are drawn about the structure of walls and of humans and words like 'mass' and 'force' are being used, the standards are held to be open to criticism by anyone that can show to anyone how such standards are flawed through explaining or displaying phenomena that contradict such standards. This becomes very difficult in advanced science, but it does not mean the enterprise or method is profoundly flawed if it is almost impossible to walk through walls. Such basic facts and the means to test them form a solid basis for anyone regarding the assertions of the thought system that is built on them.

When we arrive at thought systems that invoke God as the reason for things, this does seem to be quite at odds with thought systems that do not refer to beings that cannot be seen, felt, touched and otherwise sensed in the same way as the environment we're in.

This is a very tricky issue. After all, there are many views on just what God's role is, is he the wall and the person walking to it, did he put the means for all these tests there at the dawn of time and is now merely watching. The mutations are various. But if we find it impossible to deny basic facts about the world, I would then find it extremely difficult to conclude that because of the difficulties with assessing the truths of religion and science with regard to the Big Bang for example, I must just retreat into relativism and conclude that no meaningful dialogue can be had. To think so would be to entertain an interesting dichotomy between having basic facts that are considered more or less objectively indisputable, and then having situations where its very tough and thus having relativism. But we're dealing with the universe, and not social anthropology or differences in ethical codes, and I wonder therefore whether we shouldn't abandon the foundations we seem to have that relate to things like basic facts, because the issues grow more complex later. Quite how to tread that path is beyond the wherewithal of one man, and in declining the task I daresay I'm shirking my responsibility to give a fuller answer. Hopefully this merely indicates an incompleteness to my thinking, not an avoidance of unpalatable conclusions to rock my non relativist leanings!


Adrian

phaedrus

Adrian

I think it does. You define it partly as there being no uniquely privileged thought system.

I dont think thats what relativism implies and my take on it, i have already offered

I think any thought system that stuck to the basic facts is better than a thought system that didn't. The term 'thought system' is too vague to be of use here though, after all, many competing thought systems might be said to fit basic facts.

Which thought system sticks to basic facts and doesnt include theories????? Thought system is too vague?? Obviously competing thought systems will fit the basic facts, coz they are "basic" and are shared by different cultures in the form of "common sense" and hence there is no point in debating about them. (refer to my post above)

The relativist cannot arbitrate between a thought system that contradicted statements about basic facts that other thought systems make. To suggest that this contradictory thought system is flawed is to invoke a set of standards open only to the objectivist, because by definition the relativist cannot invoke standards with which to compare thought systems.

So? As i repeated often the relativist is not trying to arbitrate or looking for justification, he/she just feels that every standpoint is relative (or read dependent) on the culture or linguistic grouding or other frameworks.

If the relativist concedes that there are basic facts, why cannot they concede that these can form the basis of arbitration on thought systems and thus provide an objectivist grounding to what can and can't be said.

As i said above, Ok, you are able to establish what the man died of using certain standards and process. Now can you tell me how you intend to extrapolate this example to arrive at an universal objective thought system or standards that can be used for arbitration?

I agree with moral relativism, that the worth of things is dependent on cultures etc. but only insofar as this relates to aesthetics and ethics. However, as I've never given much thought to objective bases for these areas and tended only to focus on epistemological relativism, there might be a contradiction to that I haven't considered, and would welcome comment upon it if contradiction you find

As i had asked sometime back, do you want to bifurcate truth-claims and values? Thats where the apparent/possible contradiction lies..

Science is a great candidate for this system, by which I mean the method and the body of knowledge it is defining.

But are scientific standards or explanation accepted in toto by the whole pluralistic world ? For that matter, dont many of the people who work in scientific fields still stick to religion? Thats what i meant by "practical considerations".

You and me can sit here and talk at length about the virtues of science and its advantages, but we need to remember its not going to displace religion or anyother thought system until our knowledge about the world we live in continues to be "provisional". People are entitled to believe in any mumbo jumbo if they can justify to themselves the reasons for their belief, you or me cant do nothing about that. To change the basic mindset will take eons, they have been brainwashed too much for them to "deconstruct" those foundations. So lets not give science a privileged foundation and ask them to "believe" in the words of the scientists and the objective world. Human beings are much more comfortable with myths I offered this quote in morals forum

Perhaps if you would drop the "everything goes under relativism" notion and go down the road of rorty's pragmatism, you might say relativism is nothing but an acknowledgement of the pluralistic world we live in. If not, you can always try to explain to the world how one can privilege a particualr system and how to get everyone to agree to the standards. Afterall, words are words, we can always redefine what one means by relativism to make it acceptable to all and sundry

JP