[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science

[Greg Thompson]

Alfredo,

I appreciate your generosity in reading/responding as well as your
forthrightness (without which, conversation can feel a bit empty). And I
entirely respect and appreciate your position.

One point of clarification: on the relativism front I was simply making a
statement of fact, capitalism provides a framework that people use to make
ethical judgments. I wasn't suggesting that capitalism is ethical. I might
add that as an anthropologist I believe that it is possible to judge
beliefs and practices but that this can only be done after a deep
understanding of the entire context of those beliefs and practices. I've
had a lot of experience with capitalism and I'm pretty comfortable saying
that, to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides a rather
unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality. (and you'll notice that this
leads me directly to what I was chiding you for - an argument about the
false consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).

And I agree with Andy about the important contributions of others in this
thread but I'm lacking the bandwidth to adequately acknowledge/engage right
now.

And still wondering if we could hear more from/about Vaedboncoeur and her
work? Maybe there is a publication that someone could point us to?
Beth Ferholt's work seems quite relevant as well.
(but perhaps this thread is a bit too tiresome?).

Very best,
greg



On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:11 PM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
wrote:

> Thanks a lot Greg for your help and care, I really appreciate it and it is
> very helpful. And thanks also for emphasizing the importance of bridging
> across positions and trying to understand the phenomenon not only from our
> (often privileged) point of view, but also from that of others, even those
> with opposed belief systems. I truly appreciate that.
>
>
>
> Let me try to follow the signposts you nicely identified:
>
>    1. I see that my language lent itself to that reading. I believe the
>    root of our differences is that I am trying to discuss denialism as a given
>    historical practice, and not as something individual. At the individual
>    level, both deniers and people who accept the science do so out of trust;
>    just as you say, the one can argue that the other is the one who is wrong
>    or trusting the wrong people. From the socio-historical perspective,
>    however, neither position is the “free” choice of individuals who came upon
>    the thought and believed it. Climate science communication and
>    dissemination has its channels and ways to reach the public, just as
>    climate science denial does. It so happens, though, that climate science
>    denial was born of an explicit attempt to generate doubt in people, to
>    confuse them and manipulate them for profit. This is well documented in the
>    links I shared earlier. If both science and science denial have a function
>    of persuading, and we cannot differentiate between the two, then I think we
>    have a big problem. What I am saying is that we should be able to
>    differentiate between the two. I am not saying people who believe climate
>    change is real is more conscious or better conscious or any other
>    privilege; they may be acting out of pure habit and submission. I am
>    saying, though, that if people would engage in critical inquiry and
>    question the history of their reasoning habits, then they may be better
>    equipped to decide; both sides. It so happens, however, that, if we all
>    would engage in such exercise, one side would find out they are
>    (involuntarily perhaps) supporting actions that really harm people. In
>    today’s modern societies, not finding out is truly an exercise of faith.
>    2. You invite us to try to understand what the frameworks are within
>    which people may see choosing to deny climate science as “good” or the
>    “right” thing to do, and I applaud and support that goal. I think that
>    framework is the sort of sociocultural object I am trying to discuss. Yet,
>    by the same token, I’d invite anyone to consider the views and positions of
>    those who are already suffering the consequences of global warming, and I
>    wonder what justifies ignoring their suffering. This can be extrapolated to
>    a myriad practices in which all of we engage, from buying phones to going
>    to the toilette; we live by the suffering of others. And when we do so, we
>    are wrong, we are doing wrong. That’s my view, but perhaps I am wrong. I
>    believe human rights are not partisan, or negotiable; again, my leap of
>    trust.
>    3. Thanks for sharing your experience with your acquainted. I’d like
>    to clarify that, when using the language of criminality, I refer to the
>    people directly involved in making conscious decisions, and having recurred
>    to science, to then not just ignore the science but also present it
>    wrongly, making it possible for denial practices to thrive. People like the
>    one you describe are having to deal with what it’s been left for them, and
>    I totally empathize.
>
> Finally, you explicitly state that you do not want to relativize, but then
> you also say that “If capitalism is the framework for evaluating ethical
> behavior, then there is every reason to believe that EM execs are acting
> ethically”. To me, the suggestion that capitalism can be an ethical
> framework suggests a treatment of ethics as fundamentally arbitrary
> (meaning that any framework can be defined to evaluate ethical behavior). I
> am not sure I am ready to accept that assertion.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Alfredo,
>
>
>
> Thanks for reminding me of the importance of my own humility with respect
> to the positions of others. (conclusion jumping is an unfortunate
> consequence of trying to respond quickly enough on a listserve to remain
> relevant - or at least that's a challenge for me).
>
>
>
> Thank you for clarifying that your position is not to dehumanize. I
> appreciate that.
>
>
>
> Let me see if I can recover what it was from your prior email that
> provoked my response and I'll do my best to stick more closely to your
> words (respectfully) and what I didn't quite understand.
>
>
>
> Here is the quote from your post: "I agree on the difficulties, but I
> would like to emphasize that being on the right or the wrong side in issues
> of climate change in today’s Global societies is a matter of having fallen
> pray to self-interested manipulation by others, or of being yourself one
> engaged in manipulating others for your own."
>
>
>
> This language of "fallen pray..." or, worse, "being... engaged in
> manipulating others..." were both phrases that I read to mean that this is
> something that THEY do and something that WE don't do (and ditto for the
> psychological studies that explain "their" behavior in terms of
> deterministic psychological principles - rather than as agentive humans
> (like us?)). But it seems that maybe I've misread you?
>
>
>
> I think calling them "criminals" is a little better but doesn't capture
> the systemic nature of what they are doing or why it is that many people
> would say that they are doing good. Or to put it another way, I'd like to
> better understand the minds and life situations and experiences of these
> criminals - what are the frameworks within which their actions make sense
> as good and right and just and true. The point is not to relativize but to
> understand (this is the anthropologists' task).
>
>
>
> Relatedly, I may have mistakenly assumed that your question was somewhat
> tongue-in-cheek: "the motives of these corporations never were the “feel
> that this is the ethically good and right position for humanity”. Or do we?"
>
>
>
> I think that this is a real question and for my two cents I would suggest
> that the answers to this question are important to the work of climate
> justice.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned in the p.s. above, I recently had the opportunity to push
> the ExxonMobil recruiter on these issues. He's been working for them for
> about 7 years. He was conflicted when first joining ExxonMobil (hereafter
> EM) but I could sense how hard he continues to work to justify working for
> EM. A brief summary of his justification (and I took this to be EM's
> justification) could be summed up with: "just as there was an iron age in
> which innovations were essential to the development of human beings, we are
> now in the oil age". He acknowledged that oil is a problem but then pointed
> out that everything in the room was enabled by oil - whether because it
> was transported there by gas-powered vehicles or because of the massive
> amounts of plastic, rubber, and other products that are made from oil and
> are everywhere in our everyday lives. His argument was that this is the way
> it is right now. Our lives (and our current "progress") are entirely
> dependent upon oil. And he clarified that EM's position is to find ways to
> transition away from oil dependency but remain as central to the world as
> they are now. He saw his position as one in which he could be on the
> "inside" and help to enable this transition and change.
>
>
>
> Now my point is NOT that he is right in all of what he says (or that EM is
> not a central cause of the problem that he seems not to be able to see). At
> the end of the day, I personally concluded that he is an oil apologist (and
> I did my best to point this out to him and to the potential ethical ironies
> of his work). Rather, my point is that I took him at his word that he
> genuinely believes what he says and that he did not "fall prey" to the
> manipulations of others and is not himself manipulating others to further
> his own interests. He does feel conflicted about his work but at the end of
> the day he feels that he is doing what is ethically good and right for
> humanity.
>
>
>
> And to take this one step further, I think that in order to evaluate
> whether something is ethical or not, we need some kind of framework within
> which to make such a determination. If capitalism is the framework for
> evaluating ethical behavior, then there is every reason to believe that EM
> execs are acting ethically.
>
>
>
> Let me know where I've misread you and/or misunderstood you.
>
> With apologies,
>
> greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg, for reminding us of the importance of humility. Please, let
> us all realize of the humanity of deniers, as much as those of anyone else.
> But no, I am not saying that they are the ones who live in a world of false
> consciousness. Please, if I wrote that somewhere, help me correct it, cause
> I did not intend to write so. I never said Exxon staff were not human,
> Greg. I said they are criminals. I am not alone in this:
> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/24/climate-justice-ecocide-humanity-crime/
>
>
>
> I am more than happy to disagree, but your misrepresentation of what I
> just wrote went beyond what I can explain or understand in the language
> that I use. So, I think I’ll need help to find common ground and continue
> dialogue.
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Alfredo,
>
>
>
> You point to an important possibility that I would not want to rule out,
> the possibility of false consciousness. Yet, I'd like to also just point to
> the fact that one must undertake such a claim with the utmost of humility
> since "they" are making precisely the same kind of claim about you.
>
>
>
> You say that THEY are the ones who live in a world of false consciousness,
> while WE are the ones who are awake to the reality of things. This is
> precisely what climate deniers say of you!!! They say that you are caught
> up in the pseudo-science of climate change that works to further the
> introduce governmental control over our daily lives (an outcome that for
> them is just as monstrous as what you describe).
>
>
>
> We can stand and shout and say that we are right and they are wrong, but
> we have to recognize that they are doing the same thing. We could try and
> kill them off since we are convinced that they are murders, but they might
> do the same. To me it seems, there is still something more that is needed.
>
>
>
> Another way to go about this is to seek some kind of true understanding
> across these divides. Rather than dismissing "them" as a bunch of
> manipulators who are just trying to get theirs or a bunch of dupes who are
> going along with a line that they've been sold, why not try to engage
> "them" as humans just like "we" are humans? How many climate change deniers
> have we actually talked to and treated as humans? (but, you object, they
> aren't human!)
>
>
>
> I don't think that this needs to be ALL of the work of climate justice,
> but I do think that it should be part of this work. And it happens to be
> one that is sorely lacking in many approaches. (and just to be clear, I'm
> not saying that it is lacking in yours, Alfredo, I'm just posing the
> question, perhaps you know and have had conversation with many deniers and
> realize their humanity).
>
>
>
> -greg
>
> p.s., I spoke with a recruiter for ExxonMobil this past week and he noted
> that their new CEO stated unequivocally that man-made climate change is
> real and that oil is a major cause of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
>
>
> I see and Greg’s point. I can see that not everyone denying climate change
> is necessarily a “bad” person or the evil in and of themselves.
>
>
>
> However, I cannot agree with the statement that “everyone acts because
> they think it right to do so”. I’ve done (and keep doing) enough stupid
> (and wrong!) things in my life to be convinced of the falsehood of that
> statement. That statement, in my view, would ONLY apply to (a) instances in
> which people indeed ponder/consider what they are about to do before they
> do it, and (b) the nature of their pondering is in fact ethical.
>
>
>
> Should we refer to Exxon corporate decision-makers who initiated
> misinformation campaigns to cast doubt on climate science as psychopaths
> (as per your definition)? Would that be fair to people with actual
> pathologies? I’d rather call them criminals.
>
>
>
> You seem to assume (or I misread you as assuming) that all actions are
> taken based on a pondering on what is right or wrong, even when that
> pondering has not taken place. First, I don’t think we always act based on
> decision-making. Second, not every decision-making or pondering may
> consider ethical dimensions of right or wrong. I invite you to consider how
> many people among those who deny the climate science has actually gone
> through an ethical pondering when they “choose” to deny the science. My
> sense is that most deniers do not “choose,” but rather enact a position
> that is, in the metaphorical terms that the author of the article that
> Anne-Nelly has shared uses, in the air they breath within their
> communities. I am of the view that exercising ethics, just as exercising
> science denial in the 21st century, is engaging in a quite definite
> historical practice that has its background, resources, and patterns or
> habits. I think that if we exercised (practiced) more of ethics, science
> denial would be less of a “right” choice. That is, decision-making is a
> sociocultural endeavor, not something an individual comes up with alone.
> Sometimes we cannot choose how we feel or react, but we can choose who we
> get together to, the types of cultures within which we want to generate
> habits of action/mind.
>
>
>
> We cannot de-politicize science, for it is only in political contexts that
> science comes to effect lives outside of the laboratory. But we can
> generate cultures of critical engagement, which I think would bring us
> closer to your option (3) at the end of your e-mail when you ponder
> whether/how to disentangle bipartisanism and scientific literacy. I don’t
> think then relativism (that you act ethically or not depending on what you
> think it’s right or not, independently of whether great amounts of
> suffering happen because of your actions) is what would thrive. Rather, I
> believe (and hope!) **humanity** would thrive, for it would always ponder
> the question Dewey posed when considering why we should prefer democracy
> over any other forms of political organization, such as fascism:
>
>
>
> “Can we find any reason that does not ultimately come down to the belief
> that democratic social arrangements promote a better quality of human
> experience, one which is more widely accessible and enjoyed, than do
> nondemocratic and antidemocratic forms of social life? Does not the
> principle of regard for individual freedom and for decency and kindliness
> of human relations come back in the end to the conviction that these things
> are tributary to a higher quality of experience on the part of a greater
> number than are methods of repression and coercion or force?” (Dewey,
> Experience and Education, chapter 3).
>
>
>
> Please, help me see how Exxon leaders considered any of these when they
> chose to deny the science, and thought it was right. I know voters did not
> “choose” in the same way (Exxon staff trusted the science, indeed!). But it
> is back there where you can find an explanation for climate change denial
> today; it is in the cultural-historical pattern of thinking they
> contributed engineering, along with political actors, and not in the
> individual head of the person denying that you find the explanation.
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <
> andyb@marxists.org>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Alfredo, I think Greg's point is basically right, that is, everyone acts
> because they think it right to do so. The only exception would be true
> psychopaths. The issue is: *why* does this person believe this is the
> right thing to do and believe that this is the person I should trust and
> that this is the truth about the matter?
>
> Take Darwinian Evolution as an example. In the USA, this question has been
> "politicised," that is, people either accept the science or not according
> to whether they vote Democrat or Republican. There are variants on this,
> and various exceptions, but for the largest numbers belief in the Bible or
> belief in the Science textbook are choices of being on this side or the
> other side. This is not the case in many other countries where Evolution is
> simply part of the Biology lesson.
>
> In the UK, Anthropogenic climate change is not a Party question  either.
> People believe it whether they vote Tory or Labour. Still, how much people
> change their lives, etc., does vary, but that varies according to other
> issues; it is not a Party question.
>
> In Australia, Anthropogenic climate change is a Party question, even
> though this year right-wing political leaders no longer openly scorn
> climate science, but everyone knows this is skin deep. But like in the UK,
> Evolution is not a partisan question and eve the right-wing support public
> health (though it was not always so).
>
> The strategic questions, it seems to me are: (1) is it possible to break a
> single issue away from the partisan platform, and for example, get
> Republicans to support the teaching of Biology and sending their kids to
> science classes with an open mind? Even while they still support capital
> punishment and opposed abortion and public health? Or (2) Is it possible to
> lever a person away from their partisan position on a scientific or moral
> question, without asking for them to flip sides altogether? or (3) Is it
> easier to work for the entire defeat of a Party which opposes Science and
> Humanity (as we see it)?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this one. Very telling!
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly <
> Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote:
>
> Alfredo,
>
> You probably remember  this very interesting report from a journalist :
>
>
> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>
> I like to mention it because it contributes to illustrate your point,
> shading light on powerful micro-mechanisms.
>
> Anne-Nelly
>
>
>
> Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>
> Institut de psychologie et éducation Faculté des lettres et sciences
> humaines
>
> Université de Neuchâtel
>
> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1)
>
> CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>
> http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>
> A peine sorti de presse:
> https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De : *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
> *Répondre à : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >
> *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 à 09:45
> *À : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>
> *Objet : *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks, we are on the same page. But you write: «most climate change
> deniers are such because they feel that this is the ethically good and
> right position for humanity». I agree on the difficulties, but I would like
> to emphasize that being on the right or the wrong side in issues of climate
> change in today’s Global societies is a matter of having fallen pray to
> self-interested manipulation by others, or of being yourself one engaged in
> manipulating others for your own.
>
>
>
> When you pick up a scientific article (very unlikely if you are a denier)
> or a press article, and read that the Earth is warming due to human
> civilization, and then think, “nah, bullshit”, you most likely are inclined
> to infer that way cause that’s a cultural pattern of thinking
> characteristic of a group or community you belong to. There are out there
> many psychology studies showing the extent to which “opinions” on climate
> science vary not with respect to how much one knows or understand, but
> rather with respect to your religious and political affiliation (see, for
> example, https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547 ).
>
>
>
> My point being that, when you deny climate change today, you engage in a
> practice that has a very definite historical origin and motive, namely the
> coordinated, systematic actions of a given set of fossil fuel corporations
> that, to this date, continue lobbying to advance their own interests,
> permeating through many spheres of civic life, including education:
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>
>
>
> We know that the motives of these corporations never were the “feel that
> this is the ethically good and right position for humanity”. Or do we?
>
> Again, educating about (climate) **justice** and accountability may be
> crucial to the “critical” approach that has been mentioned in prior
> e-mails.
>
>
>
> I too would love seeing Jen V. chiming in on these matters.
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Alfredo and Artin, Yes and yes.
>
>
>
> Alfredo, yes, I wasn't suggesting doing without them, but simply that
> something more is needed perhaps an "ethical dimension" is needed
> (recognizing that such a thing is truly a hard fought accomplishment -
> right/wrong and good/evil seems so obvious from where we stand, but
> others will see differently; most climate change deniers are such because
> they feel that this is the ethically good and right position for humanity
> not because they see it as an evil and ethically wrong position).
>
>
>
> Artin, I wonder if Dr. Vadeboncoeur might be willing to chime in?? Sounds
> like a fascinating and important take on the issue. Or maybe you could
> point us to a reading?
>
>
>
> (and by coincidence, I had the delight of dealing with Dr. Vadebonceour's
> work in my data analysis class this week via LeCompte and Scheunsel's
> extensive use of her work to describe data analysis principles - my
> students found her work to be super interesting and very helpful for
> thinking about data analysis).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> greg
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:19 AM Goncu, Artin <goncu@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> The varying meanings and potential abuses of the connection between
> imagination and trust appear to be activity specific.  This can be seen
> even in the same activity, i.e., trust and imagination may be abused.  For
> example, I took pains for many years to illustrate that children’s
> construction of intersubjectivity in social imaginative play requires trust
> in one another.  Children make the proleptic assumption that their
> potential partners are sincere, know something about the topics proposed
> for imaginative play, and will participate in the negotiations of assumed
> joint imaginative pasts and anticipated futures.  However, this may not
> always be the case.  As Schousboe showed, children may abuse play to
> institute their own abusive agendas as evidenced in her example of two five
> year old girls pretending that actual urine in a bottle was soda pop
>  trying to make a three year old girl to drink it.  This clearly supports
> exploring how we can/should inquire what Alfredo calls the third
> dimension.  More to the point, how do we teach right from wrong in shared
> imagination?  Vadeboncoeur has been addressing the moral dimensions of
> imagination in her recent work.
>
>
>
> Artin
>
>
>
> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>
> Professor, Emeritus
>
> University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> www.artingoncu.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28, 2019 9:35 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Yes, Greg, I agree there is all grounds and rights to question trust and
> imagination, but I am less inclined to think that we can do without them
> both. So, if there is a difference between imaginative propaganda aimed at
> confusing the public, and imaginative education that grows from hope and
> will for the common good, then perhaps we need a third element that
> discerns good from evil? Right from wrong? That may why, in order for
> people to actually engage in transformational action, what they need the
> most is not just to understand Climate Change, but most importantly,
> Climate Justice. Don’t you think?
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Note that there is a great deal of trust and imagination going on right
> now in the US. We have the most imaginative president we’ve had in years.
> He can imagine his way to bigly approval ratings and a massive inaugural
> turnout. He imagines that trying to get dirt on an opponent is a “beautiful
> conversation”. And if you watch the media these days, he has a cadre of
> others who are doing additional imagining for him as well - they are
> imagining what the DNC is trying to do to ouster this president, they are
> imagining what Joe Biden might really have been up to with that prosecutor.
> And what makes matters worst is that there is a rather large contingent of
> people in the US who trust this cadre of imaginative propagandists and who
> trust Trump and believe that they are the only ones who have the real truth.
>
> So I guess I’m suggesting there might be reason to question imagination
> and trust (and this all was heightened for me by a dip into the imaginative
> and trust-filled land of conservative talk radio yesterday - but you can
> find the same message from anyone who is a Trump truster - including a
> number of politicians who are playing the same game of avoiding the facts
> (no one on those talk shows actually repeated any of the damning words from
> Trumps phone call) while constructing an alternative narrative that
> listeners trust).
>
> Sadly,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:17 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> Henry, all,
>
>
>
> Further resonating with Beth et al’s letter, and with what Henry and Andy
> just wrote, I too think the point at which trust and imagination meet is
> key.
>
>
>
> A couple of days ago, I watched, together with my two daughters (10 and 4
> years old respectively) segments of the *Right to a Future *event
> organized by The Intercept
> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
> where young and not-so-young activists and journalists discussed visions of
> 2029 if we, today, would lead radical change. It was a great chance to
> engage in some conversation with my children about these issues, specially
> with my older one; about hope and about the importance of fighting for
> justice.
>
>
>
> At some point in a follow-up conversation that we had in bed, right before
> sleep, we spoke about the good things that we still have with respect to
> nature and community, and I–perhaps not having considered my daughter’s
> limited awareness of the reach of the crisis–emphasized that it was
> important to value and enjoy those things we have in the present, when
> there is uncertainty as to the conditions that there will be in the near
> future. My daughter, very concerned, turned to me and, with what I felt was
> a mix of fair and skepticism, said: “but dad, are not people fixing the
> problem already so that everything will go well?”
>
>
>
> It truly broke my heart. I reassured her that we are working as hard as we
> can, but invited her not to stop reminding everyone that we cannot afford
> stop fighting.
>
>
>
> My daughter clearly exhibited her (rightful) habit of trust that adults
> address problems, that they’ll take care of us, that things will end well,
> or at least, that they’ll try their best. In terms of purely formal
> scientific testing, it turns out that my daughter’s hypothesis could easily
> be rejected, as it is rather the case that my parent’s generation did very
> little to address problems they were “aware” of (another discussion is what
> it is meant by “awareness” in cases such as being aware of the effects of
> fossil fuels and still accelerating their exploitation). Yet, it would
> totally be against the interest of science and society that my daughter
> loses that trust. For if she does, then I fear she will be incapable of
> imagining a thriving future to demand and fight for. I fear she will lose a
> firm ground for agency. Which teaches me that the pedagogy that can help in
> this context of crisis is one in which basic trust in the good faith and
> orientation towards the common good of expertise is restored, and that the
> only way to restore it is by indeed acting accordingly, reclaiming and
> occupying the agency and responsibility of making sure that younger and
> older can continue creatively imagining a future in which things will go
> well at the end.
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <
> andyb@marxists.org>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Trust and Science
>
>
>
> Science is based on trust, isn't it, Henry. Only a handful of people have
> actually measured climate change, and then probably only one factor. If we
> have a picture of climate change at all, for scientists and non-scientists
> alike, it is only because we *trust* the institutions of science
> sufficiently. And yet, everyone on this list knows how wrong these
> institutions can be when it comes to the area of our own expertise. So
> "blind trust" is not enough, one needs "critical trust" so to speak, in
> order to know anything scientifically. Very demanding.
>
> Important as trust is, I am inclined to think trust and its absence are
> symptoms of even more fundamental societal characteristics, because it is
> never just a question of *how much* trust there is in a society, but *who*
> people trust. It seems that nowadays people  are very erratic about *who *they
> trust about *what *and who they do not trust.
>
> Probably the agreement you saw between Huw and me was probably pretty
> shaky, but we have a commonality in our trusted sources, we have worked
> together in the past and share basic respect for each other and for
> science. Workable agreement. I despair over what I see happening in the UK
> now, where MPs genuinely fear for their lives because of the level of
> hatred and division in the community, which is beginning to be even worse
> than what Trump has created in the US. A total breakdown in trust
> *alongside* tragically misplaced trust in a couple of utterly cynical
> criminals! The divisions are just as sharp here in Oz too, but it has not
> go to that frightening level of menace it has reached in the UK and US.
>
> Greta Thunberg talks of a plural, collective "we" in opposition to a
> singular personal "you." She brilliantly, in my opinion, turns this
> black-and-white condition of the world around in a manner which just could
> turn it into its negation. Her use of language at the UN is reminiscent of
> Churchill's "we fill fight them on the beaches ..." speech and Martin
> Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. There's something for you linguists
> to get your teeth into!
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> On 28/09/2019 2:42 am, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>
> Andy and Huw,
>
> This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the discussion of
> your article on Academia: Two philosophers having a dialog about the same
> pholosophical object, a dialog manifesting an experience of common
> understanding. In the same way that two mathematicians might agree on a
> mathematical proof. I have to believe that you are not bull shitting, that
> you really have understood each other via your language. So, of course this
> is of interest to a linguist, even though he/I don’t really get the
> “proof”. I may not understand the arguments you are making, but I can
> imagine, based on slogging through thinking as a lingist, what it’s like to
> get it.
>
>
>
> I think this relates to the problem in the world of a lack of trust in
> scientific expertise, in expertise in general. Where concpetual thinking
> reigns. So many climate deniers. So many Brexiters. But can you blame them
> entirely? Probably it would be better to say that trust isn’t enough. The
> problem is a lack of connection between trust and the creative imagination.
> It’s what Beth Fernholt and her pals have sent to the New Yorker.
>
>
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks, Huw.
>
> The interconnectedness of the "four concepts," I agree, they imply each
> other, but nonetheless, they remain distinct insights. Just because you get
> one, you don't necessarily get the others.
>
> Hegel uses the expression "true concept" only rarely. Generally, he simply
> uses the word "concept," and uses a variety of other terms like "mere
> conception" or "representation" or "category" to indicate something short
> of a concept, properly so called, but there is no strict categorisation for
> Hegel. Hegel is not talking about Psychology, let alone child psychology.
> Like with Vygotsky, all thought-forms (or forms of activity) are just
> phases (or stages) in the development of a concept. Reading your message, I
> think I am using the term "true concept" in much the same way you are.
>
> (This is not relevant to my article, but I distinguish "true concept" from
> "actual concept." All the various forms of "complexive thinking" fall
> short, so to speak, of "true concepts," and further development takes an
> abstract concept, such as learnt in lecture 101 of a topic, to an "actual
> concept". But that is not relevant here. Hegel barely touches on these
> issues.)
>
> I don't agree with your specific categories, but yes, for Vygotsky,
> chapters 4, 5 and 6 are all talking about concepts in a developmental
> sense. There are about 10 distinct stages for Vygotsky. And they are not
> equivalent to any series of stages identified by Hegel. Vgotsky's "stages"
> were drawn from a specific experiment with children; Hegel's Logic is cast
> somewhat differently (the Logic is not a series of stages) and has a domain
> much larger than Psychology.
>
> The experienced doctor does not use what I would call "formal concepts" in
> her work, which are what I would call the concepts they learnt in
> Diagnostics 101 when they were a student. After 20 years of experience,
> these formal concepts have accrued practical life experience, and remain
> true concepts, but are no longer "formal." Of course, the student was not
> taught pseudoconcepts in Diagnostics 101. But all this is nothing to do
> with the article in question.
>
> Hegel and Vygotsky are talking about different things, but even in terms
> of the subject matter, but especially in terms of the conceptual form,
> there is more Hegel in "Thinking and Speech" than initially meets the eye.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> On 27/09/2019 4:32 pm, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
> The "four concepts", for me, are four aspects of one understanding -- they
> imply each other.
>
>
>
> Quoting this passage:
>
>
> "The ‘abstract generality’ referred to above by Hegel, Vygotsky aptly
> called a ‘pseudoconcept’ - a form of abstract generalization, uniting
> objects by shared common features, which resembles conceptual thinking
> because, within a limited domain ofexperience, they subsume the same
> objects and situations as the true concept indicated by the same word.
> The pseudoconcept is not the exclusive achievement of the child. In our
> everyday lives, our thinking frequently occurs in pseudoconcepts. From the
> perspective of dialectical logic, the concepts that we find in our living
> speech are not concepts in the true sense of the word. They are actually
> general representations of things. There is no doubt, however, that these
> representations are a transitional stage between complexes or
> pseudoconcepts and true concepts. (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 155)"
>
>
>
> My impression from your text, Andy, is that you are misreading Vygotsky's
> "Thinking and Speech". Implicit LSV's whole text of vol. 1 is an
> appreciation for different kinds of conception (3 levels: pseudo, formal,
> and dialectical), but the terminology of "concept" is only applied to the
> formal concept, i.e. where Vygotsky writes "concept" one can read "formal
> concept".
>
>
>
> In vol. 1, the analysis of the trajectory of the thought of the child is
> towards a growing achievement of employing formal concepts. These formal
> concepts are only called "true concepts" (not to be confused with Hegel's
> true concept) in relation to the pseudo (fake or untrue) formal concepts.
> The pseudo concepts pertain to a form of cognition that is considered by
> Vygotsky (quite sensibly) to precede the concepts of formal logic.  This is
> quite obvious to any thorough-going psychological reading of the text.
>
>
>
> However, within the frame of analysis of the text there is another form of
> conception which is Vygotsky's approach towards a dialectical
> understanding. None of Vygotsky's utterances about dialectics (in this
> volume) should be conflated with the "true concept" which he is using as a
> short-hand for the "true formal concept", similarly none of Vygotsky's
> utterances about "pseudo concepts" should be confused with formal concepts.
>
>
>
> I hope that helps,
>
> Huw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 06:37, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
> I'd dearly like to get some discussion going on this:
>
> It will be shown that at least four foundational concepts of Cultural
> Historical Activity Theory were previously formulated by Hegel, viz., (1)
> the unit of analysis as a key concept for analytic-synthetic cognition, (2)
> the centrality of artifact-mediated actions, (3) the definitive distinction
> between goal and motive in activities, and (4) the distinction between a
> true concept and a pseudoconcept.
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>
> Andy
>
> --
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/da56e937/attachment.html