Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 10, 12:14=A0pm, Tom Cod <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to
postulat=
e
> certain conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our
> knowledge of this material, otherwise we come across like pretentious
> ignoramuses, not to the same extent as the creationists obviously. The
> error I see, that is basic to the creationists is a form of
logic-"starti=
ng
> from the universal" which basically argues back from a conclusion which
i=
s
> completely backward and Ptolemaic. We first look at the facts and then
se=
e
> where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

The so-called Scientific Creationists don't start with the universal
in their pur****tedly scientific reasoning. Their reasoning, of course,
is deeply flawed, but it is inductive in form. I think you
mischaracterize their program.

> I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
> no particular interest
> in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
> empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
> thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
> feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
> them for years, only having reinforced that view. =A0It also seems
> congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
> start from preconcieved conclusions. =A0The hazards of these type of
> "marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
> ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
> Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
> going to feel threatened by empiricism.

Pragmatism is most consistent with the Instrumentalist philosophy of
science (Bridgeman). Few working scientists these days embrace it. And
what about James? He was no scientist, unless you consider psychology
scientific <g> What business did he have writing about the philosophy
of science?

Trotsky's view was that the reason to be interested in philosophy is
that, as an American, you will naturally incline to pragmatism
otherwise. And pragmatism in politics is reformism. Not that I want to
guilt trip you into reading philosophy. You might do the same to be
with regard to history!

srd