[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics

My impression is that, for me at least, the conversation about
objectivities and conventions as been helpful in focusing my thoughts on
the issue. I have not resolved the apparent, residual uncertainties or
contradictions that seem to be at issue.

Julian, might I start here, and get help with a next step:

*"Thus, the objectivity of the rules of mathematics (as with logic) rest
ultimately on the validity of the social practices that ensure maths a
wider validity, beyond the conventions of the clique of mathematicians who
run the discipline. Thus the discipline is itself disciplined."*

It seems to me that a lot is riding on the interpretation of the property
you call validity. It seems to me that the process of validation itself,
passim science studies, needs to be considered here. At some point, it
seems to me that validity means something very much like "useful" and
useful as "surplus value."  It would come very close to pragmatic
experimentalism, as close as the phenomena in question allow such a parsing.

So how are we to interpret, validity, in your formulation, which I am very
interested in?

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Oh dear! some times I despair of the possibility of communication.
> That the Earth is round is a social convention, but it is not *only* a
> social convention; it has a sound basis in material reality. That is to
> say, Julian, no amount of discoursing and activity can alter the fact that
> the world is round. The roundness of the Earth is also outside discourse
> and activity, even though it is made meaningful and known for us only
> thanks to discourse/activity.
> Driving on the right is subject to discourse/activity. In about 1968
> Sweden changed from left to right. RIght-hand driving is *only* a social
> convention.
> Simple, eh? I would have thought so.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>> And also that the earth is round is a convention! Go figure!
>> Martin
>> On Nov 8, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.
>> ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm struggling to keep up here... Surely I didn't hear Andy Blunden say
>>> that 'objectivity' implies stuff that can't be transformed? I'm sure I must
>>> have misremembered that!.?

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.