Re: Many Thanks and Some Questions ...

[Luke:]  In response to Mike Alexander’s reply on my most recent post – This matter we’re discussing also brings up another obvious set of questions:  since so much of science is based on the utilitarian model of thought and upon pragmatism, what are the most glaring shortfalls of philosophical Pragmatism and Utilitarianism (i.e., in terms of the Utilitarian Calculus)?  Do they have any shortfalls? 

 

[Mike:]  They do not say what should be done.  They can tell you how to do something but not why you would want to. 

 

[Luke:]  If the ideas of rhetorical persuasion and concrete, practical demonstration are so important to empirical inquiry and to science in general, at what point do we as scientists and social scientists draw the line between true science and philosophy and the Sophism of Socrates contemporaries in Classical Greece?  In other words, is there a point at which ‘persuasion isn’t everything’ – (what’s entailed in such a point)?  Is there a point at which the conventions of a majority group of intellectuals in a given generation can erroneous – even when they seem to have the facts and the power of demonstration/persuasion on their side? 

 

[Mike:] What do you mean by erroenous?

 

[Luke:] If so how can a good legitimate scientist/philosopher/ or otherwise scholar possibly tell which is the more accurate point of view, since so much of what we call good science is entailed in persuasive rhetoric and the funded knowledge of a majority opinion of scholars?  How might we work ourselves through the intellectual puzzle I’ve posed to adequately answer this question?

 

[Mike:]  What do you mean by legitimate?  You cannot tell what is the more accurate point of view.    All we as human beings can do is choose the most persuasive explanation that is backed by the most evidence. 

 

A useful example may be to compare science with other ways of knowing.  For example, consider revelation.  A biblical literalist can tell that evolution is not the most accurate point of view because the Bible (the revealed word of God) says God created the Earth in seven days.  No amount of rhetorical persausion or empirical evidence (e.g. science) will change his mind because he believes the Word of God over the words of mere men.  Similarly, to convince a literalist to support a particular political view it is simply necessary to show that it conforms with what the Bible says.

 

Mike Alexander,  author of
Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next 20 years and
The Kondratiev Cycle: A generational interpretation
http://www.net-link.net/~malexan/STOCK_CYCLES.htm