[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Sep 22 06:14:30 PDT 2014
Patrick,
I don't know if perhaps I have opened up a line of discussion which can
only end in unhappiness. I don't think we've ever had a discussion of
theology on xmca. I don't know that it is feasible.
I think that theological position which accepts natural processes as a
sufficient basis for explaining the world, but in some way or another
credits the creation of these processes, or their initiation, or the
formation of the laws governing them, or whatever, to God, does no harm
to most scientific activity. After all, Isaac Newton himself thought
that God set the universe in motion, and there is plenty of evidence
that these kinds of theological beliefs are compatible with scientific
work. But let's not get carried away with that. Evolution by natural
selection is *the* basic principle of biology. There is no science of
biology without it. Creationism was what I was talking about, not one of
the Deistic beliefs which are quite commonly held by practising,
perfectly intelligent scientists. I will stick to my closing line from
before though: God is not the answer to any unsolved problem of physics
or biology.
Ask a metaphysical question, you get a metaphysical answer.
You mention the case of some child dying and the response: "It was God's
will." I don't see this as meaning that God was causally responsible,
rather than the bus that ran over the child. But the luck, the chance,
or whatever, that it was *this* child and not some other. "It is in the
hands of God." Leaving aside issues like vulnerability due to economic
conditions, etc., such judgments are not contrary to science. It is just
a way of finding meaning in what is in itself meaningless, but can be
vested with meaning by, for example, a grieving community. Of course, it
is to be hoped that children are still told to look both ways before
crossing the road.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Patrick Jaki wrote:
> Andy, let me attempt a response to some of the things you have said in
> response to Carol. Largely I am in agree with you.
>
> Yes (Christian) theology is consistent with social practices and
> metaphysical beliefs. The three surveys you allude to state the
> findings based on how the question is asked. I believe if the
> questions are asked differently, it is probable that the findings
> might be also different.
>
> If Carol is in 2, i.e., where creation and evolution interface, does
> it not follow that details about creation become superfluous? Is it
> just possible that creationism started it and evolution continues to
> complete it? I say so because of the reference made to 'faith' and
> 'details'. My position is that my understanding of faith requires the
> opposite, i.e., complete details become irrelevant. What counts is
> the truth of the activity. In this case that creationism accounts for
> the ontological beginnings of things.
>
> Does God approve of a health system? Yes, a just health system. This
> is embedded in the social practices and is linked to the Christian
> metaphysical beliefs as provided for in the idea of a just God.
>
> To God in every unexplained occurrence is rather a common phenomenon.
> For example, a child dies of some disease and it is exclaimed: It was
> God's will that he should die. In this case it is the death that is
> unexplained. I am loath to accept such apportionment of
> responsibility. But is there something that can be said, in theology,
> that the answer solely rests with God? And why not in some instances
> of physics and biology?
>
> I don't know if I am taking away or adding to the discussion.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
> On 22 September 2014 10:35, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> As you know, Carol, my recent research has led me through the
> belief-systems and activity of a range of Christian denominations
> and I have learnt to value the enormous contribution which
> Christians have made to social change activism and the pursuit of
> social justice over the past 400 years, before which time the
> question is moot. Generally speaking all sorts of theology are
> consistent with all sorts of social practice and even metaphysical
> beliefs. The correlations are complex.
>
> Believing that God created the world does not imply any kind of
> supposedly literal or selective reading of the Bible and nor does
> it necessarily imply rejection of Darwinian evolution. Surveys
> about Creationism usually sort people into three categories; (1)
> God created the world 10,000 years ago or less; (2) God created
> the world by means of evolution, etc., or some such formulation
> consistent both with science and with Christian moral convictions;
> and (3) God had nothing to do with it. I think you would be (2),
> Carol. To be a Creationist requires a huge leap of faith about
> immense detail. It means believing things like "God created cows
> so man would have milk." I don't know where Spinoza and Hegel fit
> in that little 3-part scheme. I don't know what you mean by "order
> of creation". Do you mean "God created X on the Nth day" and so on?
>
> Creationism in the US is (I believe) a political position: it is a
> very specific array of concepts. Belief in God is in itself not a
> political question. The political question is only: if you believe
> in God, how do you conceive of Him (or Her)? Does God approve of
> public health, etc?
>
> The Big Bang is something else. No physicist thinks this is a
> closed question. Personally I think the solution to the obvious
> contradictions is that time, like space, is finite but unbounded.
> Plausible, involves no insuperable logical contradictions, no
> Prime Mover or First Cause, or Before Time, but it is all still an
> open question. But I think to insert God wherever you find an open
> question is just silly. It is a bit like John R.Searle who inserts
> quantum uncertainty into human biology to solve the problem of
> free will or introducing UFOs to explain unexplained events. God
> is fine, but he is not the answer to any unsolved problem of
> physics or biology.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
> Dear Andy
>
> I haven't kept up with the previous 15 conversations, but need
> to add my tuppence worth. I believe that God created the
> world, but not anything literal about the Bible. We need to
> know what triggered the Big Bang. Even Richard Dawkins the
> professed atheist is agnostic about this very point. Also it
> seems that the order of creation, although allegorical, seems
> to map out the order of events, although Biblically we really
> have to give "day" a different time frame.
>
> I just say this in case this example can be accommodated in
> your theory.
>
> Carol
>
> On 22 September 2014 08:58, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> Taking project as the KEY concept and stating that
> projects are shared
> collective desires to change *concepts* is highlighted in your
> example.
> The *intended* project is to change people's understanding of
> asbestos as a
> miracle substance to a deadly substance.
>
> Returning to the article Peter posted on *perspectival*
> assumptions as
> being collective and developing the concept of
> *perspective* away
> from its
> subjective bias to taking *perspectival* as collective
> could be
> understood
> as a *project* [writing articles to change others concepts of
> *perspectival*
>
> I sense an *overlap* and possible synergy between notions
> of *changing
> concepts* intentionally AND realizing changing perspectives by
> *looking*
> with an intentional focus.
> Are we referring to similar phenomena??
> The inherent stability of concepts/perspectives and the
> intentional
> projects to change the *shape* of harmful
> perspectives/concepts.
> Is there a bias to see perspectives AS images and concepts AS
> linguistic?
> Is this the question of multi-modality [recently shared on
> line]??
>
> I appreciated the clarity of the example of asbestos
> workers who
> shared an
> understanding of asbestos [as a miracle substance that was
> actually
> deadly]
>
> The relations between perspective taking, interpretive
> understanding, and
> concept development is the question I'm left with.
> Larry
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> > Michael, Charles.
> > This is an issue which I think can be tackled by Activity
> Theory, not just
> > climate denial, but a whole range of belief/disbelief
> problems
> like this.
> > Social justice issues and social change in general depend on
> understanding
> > and solving these kind of prejudice and scepticism.
> Postmodern
> relativism
> > has given us a poisoned chalice indeed.
> >
> > I believe that Activity Theory is well placed to solve this
> category of
> > problem and give some guidance as to how to tackle
> deeply held but
> > irrational prejudice. Developed using 'project' as the
> unit of
> analysis I
> > think Activity Theory gives us a really useful theory of
> ideology which has
> > the advantage of being firmly connected to a living
> tradition in
> > psychological science and meaningfully connected to how
> people
> live their
> > lives.
> > Taking Creationism as an example, among European and
> American
> societies,
> > the USA boasts the largest percentage of people in the
> world who
> believe
> > that God created the world just as it is today about 10,000
> years ago. They
> > are rivalled only by Turkey. And it does not correlate
> with lack of
> > education. In fact, among Republican voters, the more
> educated
> you are the
> > more likely you are to believe in the Old Testament story of
> Genesis and
> > not Darwin. A significant percentage of Democrat voters also
> believe in
> > Creationism, but this declines with education.
> >
> > The point is that when people evaluate evidence, as
> Charles was
> > suggesting, we do so by integrating the new data into
> our existing
> > conceptual frame. I regularly dismiss all sorts of news
> and theories
> > because it doesn't fit into my conceptual frame! We all
> do. The
> reason why
> > there is so much Creationism in the US is that Darwin
> versus the Old
> > Testament has been *politicised*. You prefer the Old
> Testament
> for guidance
> > as to the origin of species rather than science (personal
> experience can
> > shed no light on the question) because it is a litmus
> test for
> adherence to
> > the Good Life, just as some people hate bicycle-riders
> because
> it is a
> > signal of support for Greeny ideas which are deemed
> hostile to
> the ordinary
> > person. I believe that Climate Denial is part of the
> same issue. In
> > Australia there are rather too many Climate Deniers
> because the
> issue has
> > become politicised. Officially the conservative government
> accepts the
> > science, but every knows they don't and this is reflected in
> policies like
> > appointing climate deniers to head committees to review
> energy
> policy,
> > repealing the carbon price, etc., etc. There are a higher
> percentage of
> > climate deniers in Australia, as a result, than in
> Europe where
> the climate
> > is not politicised in that way.
> >
> > One's conceptual frame is unified through commitment to a
> life-project.
> > Opinions and evidence which don't fit the conceptual frame
> generated by the
> > central concept of a life-project, its vision of the
> Good Life.
> There is a
> > 10 minute talk on this in relation to denial of the dangers
> posed to health
> > by asbestos here:
> https://www.academia.edu/8179060/Activity_as_Project_
> > The_Case_of_Asbestos
> >
> > Apologies for going on too long.
> > Andy
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Bazerman wrote:
> >
> >> Michael,
> >> I am with you, and not only because of climate change
> deniers. The
> >> sociocultural critique has been important to show that
> humans make
> >> knowledge, and they do it from their own interests and
> perspectives. Yet,
> >> various disciplines and sciences, have come to know
> more about
> the world in
> >> ways that are less entangled with the limits of
> individual or
> small group
> >> perceptions and interests.
> >> Disciplines do represent the world outside of
> themselves, gathering
> >> data--of course selectively through their own devices,
> their
> means of
> >> collection, forms of inscription and display, etc...
> Historically, the
> >> methodological standards in different fields have
> evolved to
> include more
> >> awareness of the contingency, fragility, and specificity of
> samples, data
> >> and analysis--along with increasing cleverness of our
> tools. This is what
> >> methodology is all about. I tend to view objectivity
> not as an
> absolute,
> >> but an awareness of ways in which we are entangled with the
> phenomena we
> >> are trying to study, and to find ways to disentangle
> ourselves
> less.
> >> So from this perspective, incorporating the
> sociocultural critique
> >> creates challenges to maintain the persuasiveness of
> our data,
> >> representation, and analysis. Over the last few decades, we
> have been
> >> struggling in different disciplines to incorporate this
> critique but yet
> >> maintain the disciplinary projects of advancing
> contingent, but
> useful and
> >> reliable knowledge. I like your term warranted
> assertability.
> I myself
> >> have relied on the idea of accountability--in terms of
> being
> able to give a
> >> good account of your research actions when queried from
> various
> directions.
> >> But it is important to the advance of knowledge that we
> find
> ways to gather
> >> and understand information about the world (in which we are
> both living
> >> parts and the constructors of knowledge about that
> world including
> >> ourselves) that recognizes the contingency of our
> knowledge but
> does not
> >> evaporate our confidence in that knowledge into a vapor of
> contingency only.
> >>
> >> I have struggled with this issue for many years in my
> work on the
> >> rhetoric of science and have discussed it in various ways,
> drawing on the
> >> work of many others (Ludwik Fleck still seems important
> to me
> over many
> >> years), but more work needs to be done to crystallize an
> understanding that
> >> leaves science and social science standing despite it being
> created by
> >> poor, frail, interested, humans of limited and skewed
> vision.
> >> best,
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Glassman, Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu
> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>>
> >> Date: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:21 am
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> It seems to me that articles like this can be a double
> edged
> sword.
> >>> They use examples where culture has an influence on
> how we see
> things but
> >>> then offer the generalization that science is
> perspective. This is the
> >>> same line you hear by climate deniers who claim that the
> climatologists
> >>> have a liberal bias. Science is based on individual
> perspective until it
> >>> doesn't. I'm their book is a much more nuanced
> discussion. This is a
> >>> really complex issue which at this particular moment has
> extraordinary
> >>> import. Maybe we need to find other ways to discuss
> this -
> like warranted
> >>> assertability. Perhaps I have been spending too much time
> reading about
> >>> the politics of climate change lately and it has
> spooked me.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>]
> >>> on behalf of David Preiss [daviddpreiss@gmail.com
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>>]
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:41 PM
> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >>>
> >>> And they make claims for all humankind.
> >>>
> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 22:16, Martin John Packer
> >>>>
> >>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>>>
> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> So there are two distinct problems here: First, the
> researchers are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> not diverse. Second, the people they (we?) study are
> not diverse.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:11 PM, David Preiss
> <daviddpreiss@gmail.com <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Loved the WEIRD acronym. One of the best ironies I've
> seen in
> >>>>>
> >>>> recent scientific writing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 18:57, Rod Parker-Rees
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
> <mailto:R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> <mailto:R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
> <mailto:R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>>> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Great article, David - highlights the importance (at
> every level)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> of being aware of what others might find odd about
> us (secondary
> >>> socialisation?).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rod
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On Behalf Of David
> Preiss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 18:31
> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This article is revelant for this topic:
> http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ <http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/%7E>
> <http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/%7E>
> >>>>>> henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 13:42, mike cole
> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>> escribió:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The book by Medin and Bang, "Who's asking"
> published by
> MIT is GREAT
> >>>>>>> reading. Seeing this in Scientific American is super.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:18 AM, David Preiss <
> >>>>>>> daviddpreiss@gmail.com
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com
> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What a fantastic piece Peter! Loved the references to
> primatology.
> >>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 7:31, Peter Smagorinsky
> <smago@uga.edu <mailto:smago@uga.edu>
> <mailto:smago@uga.edu <mailto:smago@uga.edu>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> escribió:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-
> >>>>>>>> affects-how-s
> >>>>>>>> cience-is-done/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of
> construction
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> re- construction in which heterogeneous resources are
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> contingently but
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> more or less reliably reassembled for each life
> cycle." [Oyama,
> >>>>>>> Griffiths, and Gray, 2001]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>> [
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential
> and intended
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is
> addressed.
> If you
> >>> are not the intended recipient then copying,
> distribution or
> other use of
> >>> the information contained is strictly prohibited and you
> should not rely on
> >>> it. If you have received this email in error please
> let the
> sender know
> >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s).
> Internet emails
> are not
> >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth
> University accepts
> >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your
> responsibility to
> scan emails
> >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> responsibility
> >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in
> this email
> or its
> >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services
> unless
> accompanied
> >>> by an official order form.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> Developmental psycholinguist
> Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
> Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Odwora Jaki*
>
> *Mob: (27) 079 643 1097 <tel:%2827%29%C2%A0%20079%20643%201097>
>
> P. O Box 505
> Wits
> Johannesburg
> 2050
>
> _South Africa_*
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list