Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.lang,alt.feminism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!usenet
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Subject: Re: Is "Social Text" showing good faith? (was: Sokal's Hoax)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ara-mac-204.itc.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DsBL1z.J65@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@ara-mac-204.itc.virginia.edu
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[9087]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <4o22u7$phn@bessel.nando.net> 
 <Ds6FF6.EGL@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4oi6uq$sb6@rebecca.albany.edu> 
 <DsA9Gx.BtK@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  <4ononp$jid@rebecca.albany.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 11:53:59 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.
Lines: 48
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:175950 sci.lang:55041

In article <4ononp$jid@rebecca.albany.edu>
labonnes@csc.albany.edu (S. LaBonne) writes:

> Ok- do you want to argue that those two are _good_ reasons for
> preferring to get your information about stars from astronomers rather
> than astrologers? 

Yep.


> 
> And/or do you want to agree with Rorty (as I interpret his position)
> that these really are the _only_ reasons? 

Yep, that too.

That it literally would make
> no sense to try to persuade a devotee of astrology, from a culture
> that valued astrologers over astronomers, that s/he was in error?
> (Which is my principle argument for concluding that these are
> insufficient reasons, because I deny that this is a senseless
> enterprise.)


Well, plenty of people accept BOTH astrology and astronomy.  This may
be absurdly self-contradictory, but it is not impossible in the way
that, say, supporting fascism and democracy together is impossible. 
However, as far as arguments go for convincing someone either to drop
astrology or to adopt astronomy, we would use basically the same
arguments, including using astronomy to refute astrology.  I just
wouldn't add the meaningless flourish about truth and reality etc.



> 
> Finally, do you want to tell me about other reasons Rorty has given
> that I have missed?

It's not a matter of education, but of strength of character.


David

"Resistance to the proposition that the essence of truth is freedom is
based on preconceptions, the most obstinate of which is that freedom is
a property of man."  Martin Heidegger, "On the Essence of Truth," [Vom
Wesen der Wahrheit] translated by John Sallis, in "Basic Writings,"
(old version, 1977) p.126.
