tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post9095293773775025881..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Hobbes May Have Been Wrong; He Was Not Dumbgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-13894978964382367772012-10-10T14:04:16.435-04:002012-10-10T14:04:16.435-04:00Tom, but you don't deny the theoretical basis ...Tom, but you don't deny the theoretical basis of gunpowder because the state uses it, do you?! That a class you don't like can *use* Hobbes's argument says nothing about whether the argument is sound.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62699441594367765092012-10-09T18:43:15.387-04:002012-10-09T18:43:15.387-04:00Well, Silas, that would be incorrect.
You are con...Well, Silas, that would be incorrect.<br /><br />You are confusing three categories of things:<br /><br />1) The cultural pre-conditions that allowed science to evolve;<br />2) The metaphysical assumptions required to think science is sound (which may be missing in many, many scientists, because they simply don't push their thought that far); and<br />3) What is necessary for someone to actually practice science successfully.<br /><br />Your list is a muddle of the three, plus some extraneous things (like the nature of history) dragged in.<br /><br />And what does whether I *like* someone have to do with this? My real list, rather than your off-kilter version of my list, IS stacked: it is stacked against ideas I think are false, and stacked towards those I think are true!<br /><br />Is that very surprising?!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-6126154134373484682012-10-09T17:44:45.879-04:002012-10-09T17:44:45.879-04:00This is just my own opinion, but I've always t...This is just my own opinion, but I've always thought of science as the logic of a particular area or discipline, not necessarily the practical application. If one takes this view then one can certainly invent something without having science serving the role of a real contributor. After all, many inventions and such happen purely by accident. The practical application typically only initiates or confirms/denies the logic of it, or the science of it. <br /><br />So, I think that using the term "human ingenuity" as a synonym for "science" is far too broad. Science has far more to do with actually understanding the how the world around us operates, even if that involves our own practical applications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79326388221391327792012-10-09T17:28:25.541-04:002012-10-09T17:28:25.541-04:00That's not my argument. My problem is with yo...That's not my argument. My problem is with your more general classifier, which I think works like this:<br /><br />Not required for science:<br />- Falsifiability (your comments on Popper)<br />- Reproducibility (your comments about unique events)<br />- Reductive models (re reductionism)<br />- Accumulation of hard-to-find, useful knowledge (re gunpowder)<br /><br />Required for science:<br />- Belief in (a Western?) God<br />- Reference to Aristotelian <i>theoria</i><br /><br />It just seems ... well, stacked against anyone you don't like. I'm genuinely curious why you seem to use this concept of science.Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-60086139060325653312012-10-09T16:01:56.622-04:002012-10-09T16:01:56.622-04:00Silas, do you really think a culture has to have d...Silas, do you really think a culture has to have developed something recognizable as science to invent things? If so, ALL cultures have science, and the term just becomes synonymous with "human ingenuity."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40219246602601297752012-10-09T15:40:32.083-04:002012-10-09T15:40:32.083-04:00Gunpowder that was invented in China without the h...Gunpowder that was invented in China without the help of science, no less!Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88804600476163499552012-10-09T10:18:17.447-04:002012-10-09T10:18:17.447-04:00Well, in fairness, supporters of the state on grou...Well, in fairness, supporters of the state on grounds of Hobbesian social contractarianism usually make the same error. <br /><br />They assert the existence of an [at least implied] actual social contract, not something "like" a social contract.<br /><br />I don't reject Hobbes's arguments because I take them literally instead of as an "as if" claim.<br /><br />I reject them because rather than seeing the "social contract" as something that ends a war of all against all, I see it as a weapon -- a weapon on par with the introduction of gunpowder, or chemical weapons, or the atom bomb -- of the emergent political class in its war on everyone else.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.com