Recently a dear cyber friend of mine, Zain Raza, forwarded me the link to his personal blog. Having promised him to provide feedback on his blog,I came across one of his posts addressing the issue of assumptions of science. This is what he had to say on this issue.
''Herein follows a list of assumptions made in accepting scientific assertions as the truth. It must be said that as far as assumptions go, these are good ones – but it is also important to document them, lest they be forgotten.
1: The assumptions of rationality
The very first assumption is in accepting that human rationality is capable of formulating true ideas on reality. This is fairly simple to see, there is no way to escape human rationality to prove its use correct or not and this would include logical language as well as mathematical formulations. Following from this:
2. The assumption of truth
If it really is possible to see reality correctly, one must assume that there is a truth to be found, in the first place.
3: The assumptions of naturalism and efficient causes
This is the assumption that cause begets effect and the further assumption that every cause is physical. David Hume quite conclusively put to rest all theories of causation as true and for the paradoxes involved in assuming the term ‘physical’ see this earlier post.
4: The assumption of verificationism
Verificationism is the idea that for any real discussion to exist around a question, the terms must be verifiable (usually, following the empiricists, the terms must be observable). Asking for a verification of the idea of verificationism proves this an assumption.''
While all of these alone are enough to make a case, together they are conclusive.
Below is my feedback on this post of Zain's.
Though by no standards I am a formal science student but I think I have earned a right to state my opinion by my reasonable self-study. Apart from the assumptions you mentioned, there are numerous others.Here are a few more
1)Assumption of progress
Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the scientific method but none the less its the metaphysical basis of all scientific study Almost all scientist believe in progress. There is nothing wrong or absurd about this idea but by no means we can verify or falsify this metaphysical belief which lies at the heart of scientific inquiry or scientific world view.
2)Subject/Object dichotomy:
Science presupposes the existence of external world. Regards us as 'subjects' and the external reality as 'object'. Therefore the scientific 'episteme' presupposes the distinction between subject and object. Again an adherence to metaphysical position.
3)Partial study of the whole of Reality:
Science works on the basis of induction and experimentation. Therefore, it always studies a part of the whole by 'selecting' material for the experiments. Therefore, It can never give us a holistic picture of reality. However, the assumption is that we can proceed from specific to general.
On a personal note, I would have preferred the term falsification over verification but I believe Zain's critique was directed against Positivism which is quite justified as far as its merits are concerned.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A Mermaid
'A mermaid found a swimming lad,
Picked him for her own,
Pressed her body to his body,
Laughed; and plunging down
Forgot in cruel happiness
That even lovers drown. ' -
The Mermaid by W.B. Yeats.
Picked him for her own,
Pressed her body to his body,
Laughed; and plunging down
Forgot in cruel happiness
That even lovers drown. ' -
The Mermaid by W.B. Yeats.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A new world!
Perish everything around you.
Your hopes, and dreams;
And half fulfilled dreams.
Perish the old deities;
Along with the ones that reside within you.
Perish everything around you.
Build your world anew if you are alive.
Your hopes, and dreams;
And half fulfilled dreams.
Perish the old deities;
Along with the ones that reside within you.
Perish everything around you.
Build your world anew if you are alive.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Excerps from Schopenhauer's On Women
Here are some excerpts from the infamous 'misogynistic' essay by Arthur Schopenhauer.
''Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate... between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.''
And my favorite part
''Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.''
Ans some interesting insights
''This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.''
''Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate... between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.''
And my favorite part
''Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.''
Ans some interesting insights
''This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.''
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Morality and the divided Self!
Let me be frank here without being much evasive in presenting my argument. Morality has nothing to do with selflessness and altruism. Most of the moralists would argue that when a women surrenders herself to her lover, a man dies for his nation, a mother sacrifices her sleep for her infant kid, an honest civil servant refuses bribe they all make sacrifices and all these examples cannot be understood as mere personifications of personal self-interest and motives without perversity of reason. The argument may seem quite convincing to some people. However, a deeper analysis leads us to another conclusion. A martyr sacrifices himself not out of sheer altruism but rather his own personal ambition. Apparently selfless looking acts are not devoid of human vanity. Here is the analysis..
When we perform such seemingly altruistic acts. We idealize a part of us (the idea of being a martyr, a loyal lover, good mother etc) more than the other part. And in doing so we sacrifice our other part in lieu of the idealized part. Therefore, morality divides the Self. I am very well aware of the fact that not to many people would like to think this way. Perhaps for them, its so immoral to be moral this way.
When we perform such seemingly altruistic acts. We idealize a part of us (the idea of being a martyr, a loyal lover, good mother etc) more than the other part. And in doing so we sacrifice our other part in lieu of the idealized part. Therefore, morality divides the Self. I am very well aware of the fact that not to many people would like to think this way. Perhaps for them, its so immoral to be moral this way.
Dillemma!
Whenever finding myself torn between love and loyalty; I have always preferred loyalty. My loyalty towards love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)