[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Sep 29 20:38:34 PDT 2019
Wow! This discussion has really progressed while I was
asleep. :)
David Kirshner's contribution was important, I think, in
pointing to the formation and propagation of these beliefs
as collective processes which strongly determine individual
consciousness and 'choices'. Michael Glassman is right in
respect of how the constellations of ideas an practices in
the USA has been determined by its history, but other
countries without that specific history have versions of the
same tribalism, albeit less extreme. My original point was
to look at the relevant views not on their own (i.e. climate
denial alone, separately from anti-abortion, for example),
but as entire "suites" of beliefs which vary from country to
country but constitute integral wholes in each community.
The first I heard about climate change was the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth report in
1972. Commissioned by the Club of Rome and funded by
Volkswagon and promoted by Tory PM Ted Heath, of course I
rejected it. Just as the world economy was tipping into
recession the capitalists were telling us it was a good
thing if working people had less. As it turns out this
corporate conspiracy was telling the truth, and it took me
more than a decade to realise it. After all, it has been a
fact that human beings cannot influence the climate and have
to learn to live with it ever since human beings evolved as
a species until our own lifetimes. No-one ever had to
'invent' climate denialism. It was conventional wisdom since
Science began.
The use or importation of Asbestos is banned in Australia as
of 2003. But the deadly effects of it were known to science
as early as 1935 and many thousands have died in the
meantime, and continue to die. With my colleague Lynn
Beaton, I tell the story of how minds were eventually
changed on this topic here
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Miracle-Fiber-Exposed.pdf.
Executives of James Hardy Ltd (the main producer) had
members of their own family die of asbestosis. In one case a
plant supervisor gave evidence in court to defend James
Hardy while on a respirator in the last gasps of his death
from mesothelioma.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 30/09/2019 9:09 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
> *Répondre à : *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 à 09:45
> *À : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer
> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur
> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
> <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>
> *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>]
> *On Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28, 2019
> 9:35 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at
> 16:05
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September
> 2019 at 04:38
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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://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://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://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://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/20190930/3384d335/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list