#Evolutionary Epistemology
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
omegaphilosophia · 2 months ago
Text
The Philosophy of Evolution
The philosophy of evolution explores the implications of evolutionary theory for understanding life, human nature, morality, and knowledge. It intersects with various philosophical disciplines, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and the philosophy of science. By examining evolution through a philosophical lens, thinkers address questions about purpose, progress, morality, and the role of chance in shaping the natural world.
1. Metaphysics and Evolution
Naturalism: Evolution supports a naturalistic worldview where life and its complexity arise from natural processes without invoking supernatural explanations. It suggests that life evolves according to the laws of nature, without inherent design or purpose, challenging traditional metaphysical views of teleology (the belief that nature has intrinsic purposes or goals).
Reductionism vs. Holism: A key metaphysical question concerns whether evolution can be fully explained through reductionism (breaking down biological phenomena into smaller parts, like genes and molecules) or whether a more holistic approach, considering whole systems or species, is required to understand evolutionary processes.
Emergence: Evolution also brings up the idea of emergence, where new properties (such as consciousness) arise from complex systems that cannot be predicted by studying individual components. Evolution highlights how simple processes can lead to the development of more complex structures, such as life and intelligence.
2. Epistemology and Evolution
Evolutionary Epistemology: This branch of philosophy examines how evolutionary theory influences our understanding of knowledge itself. It suggests that human cognitive faculties evolved to help us survive rather than to discover absolute truth, which raises questions about the reliability and limits of human knowledge. Charles Darwin himself pondered whether human reason, evolved for survival, could fully grasp the ultimate truths of the universe.
Adaptive Knowledge: Some evolutionary epistemologists argue that knowledge is adaptive, meaning that our beliefs and perceptions are shaped by natural selection to be useful for survival, even if they are not necessarily "true" in an objective sense. This leads to debates about truth versus usefulness in our understanding of the world.
Problem of Skepticism: If our cognitive faculties evolved for survival rather than truth, this raises the problem of skepticism: How can we trust that our beliefs about the world, especially abstract scientific or philosophical beliefs, are reliable? This remains a significant philosophical issue related to evolution.
3. Ethics and Evolution
Evolutionary Ethics: Evolutionary theory has influenced the development of evolutionary ethics, which seeks to explain the origins of moral behavior in terms of evolutionary processes. According to this view, human morality and altruism may have evolved because they were beneficial for social cooperation and group survival.
Moral Relativism vs. Objectivism: Evolutionary ethics raises questions about whether morality is relative (based on adaptive needs that change over time) or objective (based on unchanging moral truths). Some philosophers argue that if morality is a product of evolution, it may lack objective grounding, while others suggest that evolution reveals fundamental moral principles that enhance survival.
Altruism and Self-Interest: Evolutionary biology also explores the tension between self-interest and altruism. Theories like kin selection and reciprocal altruism attempt to explain how seemingly selfless behaviors can evolve in organisms by benefiting related individuals or by fostering cooperation that indirectly benefits the actor.
4. Teleology and Progress
Non-Teleological Evolution: One of the key shifts brought about by Darwin’s theory of evolution was the rejection of teleology (the idea that nature has an intrinsic purpose or end goal). In contrast to earlier philosophical views, such as those of Aristotle, Darwinian evolution is non-teleological, meaning that life evolves through natural selection without any predetermined direction or final purpose.
Evolution and Progress: Philosophers debate whether evolution implies progress. While evolution leads to the development of more complex life forms, it is driven by random mutations and environmental pressures rather than an inherent drive toward improvement. Some argue that the notion of progress in evolution is a cultural projection rather than a scientific reality.
5. Human Nature and Evolution
Determinism and Free Will: Evolutionary theory raises questions about free will and determinism. If human behavior is shaped by genetic and environmental factors, to what extent do individuals have control over their actions? This leads to debates about the role of biology in determining human behavior and the possibility of moral responsibility.
Human Exceptionalism: Traditional views of human nature often emphasize the unique status of humans in the natural world. Evolution challenges this by placing humans within the continuum of animal life, suggesting that our traits, including language, intelligence, and culture, evolved from earlier species. This perspective calls into question notions of human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism (the belief that humans are the central or most important species).
Consciousness and Evolution: Philosophers also explore how evolution accounts for consciousness and subjective experience. The emergence of conscious awareness in humans and other animals presents a major challenge to evolutionary explanations, as it is not yet clear how conscious experience enhances survival in a way that can be selected for by natural processes.
6. Philosophy of Science and Evolution
Evolution as a Scientific Paradigm: The philosophy of science examines how evolutionary theory functions as a scientific paradigm. Since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, evolution has become the dominant framework for understanding biology, but philosophers explore how this paradigm influences scientific methodology, the interpretation of data, and the nature of scientific explanation.
Falsifiability: Evolutionary theory has been scrutinized by philosophers like Karl Popper, who initially questioned its falsifiability (whether it can be empirically tested and potentially disproved). While Popper later revised his view, debates continue over how evolutionary theory fits within the framework of scientific inquiry.
Intelligent Design and Evolution: The debate between evolution and intelligent design continues in philosophical and public discourse. Proponents of intelligent design argue that certain features of the natural world exhibit complexity that cannot be explained by evolution alone and must involve a guiding intelligence. Philosophers examine whether this critique holds scientific validity or if it relies on unscientific assumptions.
7. Existential Implications of Evolution
Evolution and Meaning: For some philosophers, evolution challenges traditional notions of meaning and purpose in life. If humans are the product of random mutations and natural selection, rather than divine or purposeful creation, then what is the basis for human meaning? This existential question leads to varying responses, from nihilism (the belief that life lacks inherent meaning) to humanism (the belief that humans can create meaning through their actions and relationships).
Existential Anxiety: The idea that life evolved through a blind, purposeless process can evoke existential anxiety, as it challenges comforting beliefs about human significance and destiny. This leads to philosophical exploration of how individuals and societies can find meaning and value in a world shaped by evolutionary processes.
8. Social and Cultural Evolution
Cultural Evolution: Beyond biological evolution, philosophers explore how cultural practices, languages, and social norms evolve over time. Cultural evolution operates through different mechanisms than biological evolution, such as imitation, learning, and social transmission. Philosophers debate whether cultural evolution follows Darwinian principles or whether it requires a separate framework.
Social Darwinism: The misuse of evolutionary theory to justify social hierarchies and inequalities is known as Social Darwinism. This ideology applies the concept of "survival of the fittest" to human societies, often in a distorted way. Philosophers critically analyze the ethical and social implications of applying evolutionary ideas to human behavior and society, rejecting these misinterpretations in favor of a more nuanced understanding of evolution’s influence on culture.
The philosophy of evolution engages with profound questions about life, knowledge, morality, and human nature, arising from the theory of evolution. It examines the role of natural processes in shaping not only biological entities but also our understanding of knowledge, ethics, and meaning. By challenging traditional metaphysical and teleological views, evolution encourages a naturalistic and dynamic view of the world, while also raising new philosophical challenges, particularly regarding the nature of humanity, morality, and knowledge.
4 notes · View notes
Text
Liberalism’s great contribution to civilization is the way it handles conflict. No other regime has enabled large and varied groups of people to set a social agenda without either stifling their members’ differences or letting conflict get out of hand. Bertrand Russell once said that “order without authority” might be taken as the motto both of political liberalism and of science. If you had to pick a three-word motto to define the liberal idea, “order without authority” would be pretty good.
The liberal innovation was to set up society so as to mimic the greatest liberal system of them all, the evolution of life. Like evolutionary ecologies, liberal systems are centerless and self-regulating and allow no higher appeal than that of each to each in an open-ended, competitive public process (a game). Thus, a market game is an open-ended, decentralized process for allocating resources and legitimizing possession, a democracy game is an open-ended, decentralized process for legitimizing the use of force, and a science game is an open-ended, decentralized process for legitimizing belief.
Much as creatures compete for food, so entrepreneurs compete for business, candidates for votes, and hypotheses for supporters. In biological evolution, no outcome is fixed or final—nor is it in capitalism, democracy, science. There is always another trade, another election, another hypothesis. In biological evolution, no species, however clever or complex, is spared the rigors of competition—nor are the participants in capitalism, democracy, science. No matter who you are, you must conduct your business in the currency of dollars, votes, or criticism—no special fiat, no personal authority.
To think of democracy and capitalism as liberal social systems is, of course, commonplace today. To think of science that way is more challenging. Most of us think of science as a kind of machine whose equations and labs and research papers inexorably grind out data and theories and inventions. But philosophers of science have moved sharply away from that view, and toward what has become known as evolutionary epistemology.
Evolutionary epistemology holds that our knowledge comes to us not from revelation, as religious traditions maintain; nor from deep reflection by the wise, as in Plato; nor even from crisp experiments that unambiguously reveal nature’s secrets, as in the mechanistic view of science that prevailed until this century. Rather, our knowledge evolves—with all the haphazardness and improvisation that “evolving” implies. In biological evolution, species and their genes evolve as they compete for limited resources, with mutations providing the raw material for change. In evolutionary epistemology, hypotheses and ideas evolve as they compete under pressure from criticism, with intellectual diversity providing the raw material for change.
The evolutionary view of knowledge recognizes that, in science, trial and error play as important a role as does mechanistic experimentation. It recognizes that scientific consensus doesn’t always march methodically toward a single inevitable conclusion; the consensus often meanders or drifts, and where it comes out on any given day can depend as much on circumstance and fashion, even on personalities, as on nature. (Which is not to say that the results are random; the method of trial and error may be unpredictable in the short term, but in the longer term it produces steady improvement. The path may veer this way or that, but the long-term direction is uphill.) Most important, the evolutionary view recognizes that knowledge comes from a social process. Knowledge comes from people checking with each other. Science is not a machine; it is a society, an ecology. And human knowledge, like the species themselves, is a product of the turmoil of the interreactions of living organisms.
Order emerging as each interreacts with each under rules which are the same for all (order without authority): just as that idea links the great liberal systems, so it also links the great liberal theorists. Darwin is known to have been strongly influenced by the economic ideas of Adam Smith. “The theory of natural selection,” writes Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist and historian of science, “is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits.”
And Adam Smith was deeply familiar with the thinking of the British political liberals (he published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, after all). Yet the most intimate connection between members of the liberal constellation is also the least appreciated: the connection between democracy and science. Indeed, the theory of political liberalism and the theory of epistemological liberalism were fathered by one and the same man, the father of liberalism itself.
John Locke proposed, three hundred years ago, that the legitimacy of a government resides not with the rulers but with the rolling consent of the governed. To the argument that “no government will be able long to subsist, if the People may set up a new Legislative, whenever they take offence at the old one,” Locke replied that government based on popular consent will be more rather than less stable than a regime in which the ruler is fixed, initial impressions notwithstanding.2 The genius of Locke (and, later, of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin) was to see, as Plato had not, that social stability does not require social stasis; just the opposite, in fact.
This same John Locke also set on its feet the empirical theory of knowledge. Locke himself never explicitly linked his philosophy of knowledge with his philosophy of politics, but the kinship is not hard to see. To begin with, he was one of the greatest of all the fallibilists (or, in that sense, of the skeptics). Just as no one is absolutely entitled to claim the right to rule, so no one is absolutely entitled to decide what is true. Just as not even a king may infringe on basic rights, so not even the wisest or holiest man may claim to be above error. For any and all of us may be mistaken. “All men are liable to error,” Locke said. “Good men are men still liable to mistakes, and are sometimes warmly engaged in errors, which they take for divine truths, shining in their minds with the clearest light.”
No: however certain you may feel, however strongly you are convinced, you must check. Knowledge of all things except our own being, God’s being, and mathematics can be obtained only by looking to experience—that is, by checking. From Locke, then, comes our public process for picking worthy beliefs, as well as our public process for picking worthy leaders. From him comes liberalism’s defining principle: rule by rules, not by persons.
And—no surprise, this—from him also comes the strongest of all arguments for toleration of dissent. In passages which today define the morality of liberal science, Locke preached the sermon which every generation learns with such difficulty and forgets with such ease: “We should do well to commiserate our mutual ignorance, and endeavor to remove it in all the gentle and fair ways of information, and not instantly treat others ill, as obstinate and perverse, because they will not renounce their own, and receive our opinions. . . . For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns?”
This, finally, is why the Constitution protects the speech of Nazis, Communists, racists, sexists, homophobes, and Andy Rooney: they may be right. And, if they turn out to be wrong, it does us good to hear what they have to say so that we can criticize their beliefs and know why they are wrong.
-- Jonathan Rauch, "Kindly Inquisitors"
==
We describe human knowledge as evolving, but this is more accurate than a mere metaphor. We can see it in the decline of religion and belief in gods. And we can see what we might call a kind of epistemic creationism in attempts to - or even demands to - artificially circumvent that evolutionary process.
4 notes · View notes
harmonic-psyche · 1 year ago
Text
The concept of "weaponized incompetence" strikes me as inherently ableist. It also reeks of cognitive bias.
Consider a person who says that they cannot do a task. Taking that person at their word is the only way I can imagine to respect disabled people:
Disability is a spectrum (well, many overlapping spectra) and is often undiagnosed. So, you can never know for sure that the person is not disabled.
Many disabilities are only detectable by the person with that disability. So, you can never prove for certain that the person is "faking it."
It is impossible to know for sure that someone's incompetence is intentional instead of genuine. So, if you do not take someone at their word when they say they cannot do a task, then you will struggle to avoid ableism.
Claiming that someone is “faking incompetence” or “weaponizing incompetence” is also very, very unparsimonious:
When two different theories explain the same thing equally well, and one theory makes more assumptions about what exists, then all else being equal, we should prefer the other theory. Calling something accidental just assumes that it happened, whereas calling it intentional assumes that it happened and that someone intended it to happen. Any claim that a certain intention exists should be justified. So, we should only assume that something was intentional when we cannot explain it as well by calling it accidental.
An intention only exists within a person's mind. Nobody else can read their mind to prove or disprove that a specific intention exists. So we can never know for sure that an action was intentional. Proving intention is questionable even in the clearest cases—just ask a lawyer. Trying to prove that a lack of an action was intentional is even more difficult, especially because the answer to “Why didn't you do X?” is frequently “I didn't think of X.”
The flagrant lack of parsimony, and disregard of Hanlon's Razor, in any accusation of "weaponized incompetence" border on conspiratorial. Calling incompetence "weaponized" reeks of cognitive bias. Let me explain…
Calling an accident intentional is much more common than calling an intentional choice accidental. This fact exists in a network of related cognitive biases: Agency Bias, Teleological Bias, and especially Intentionality Bias. They all roughly say that we are overly quick to see purpose in a coincidence.
From my evo psyc armchair these biases seem relatively simple to explain. Failing to spot a real pattern has a far greater evolutionary cost than seeing a pattern where none exists. So, erring on the side of paranoia and false positives is an adaptive trait that evolution selected for in humans.
Arguably, these biases are why conspiracy theories and superstitions exist at all.
I will conclude with a rule of thumb that I try to live by, an improved version of Hanlon's Razor: “Never assume malice when incompetence is a good enough explanation — at least, not the first time!”
there's undoubtedly some merit to the concept of "weaponised incompetence" but i don't think I can engage with it at all because my adhd ass has been accused of it. "you're just pretending to be bad at this to get out of doing it" is like a manchurian candidate activation phrase that makes me start biting. absolutely catastrophic intersection with disability as a whole, really.
I think those who discuss the concept have to reckon with the fact that they are not capable of distinguishing "bad at thing on purpose" and "bad at thing because disability". No, not even you, sit down. I'm not saying this as a burn, I'm saying this as a hard fact that not everyone who has a disability is obviously disabled, they aren't even necessarily aware they have a disability. If your activism can't handle a topic like that then you're fuckin' up!
4K notes · View notes
transmutationisms · 2 years ago
Note
thots on astrology? related, thoughts on mbti?
k i like that you guys just pop in my inbox from time to time and invite me to run my mouth about topics and concepts. like truly what else is this website for.
anyway astrology (& sorry, most of what i know here pertains specifically to europe in the middle ages onward) is genuinely such a bizarro historical case of a science whose core epistemological presupposition (a geocentrist and specifically anthropocentrist cosmology) has completely fallen out of favour in both popular and professional discourse, and i don't think most people appreciate how weird it is for astrology to continue existing with this degree of popular and mainstream participation lol. like most fringe science actually bothers to have some semblence of its own reactionary epistemology to fall back on; astrology just doesn't seem to care. it would be like if the medical guilds fully endorsed the position that blood is circulated in the human body by the heart, but then also recommended as treatments for clotting disorders medical practices that only make sense on the supposition that the liver is the origin of all blood and is continuously creating more of it. like no other science that i can think of tries to have it both ways to the extent astrology does. like, one reason phrenology and eugenics are bad comparison points here is because they're very much copacetic with post-enlightenment naturalism and evolutionary transpositions in the social sciences. astrology, like, intellectually is not and yet here it is anyway. ideology innit.
anyhow i assume the reason you asked about this in conjunction with mbti is because today's astrology is largely purporting to provide psychological analysis and is therefore more similar to a system like mbti than to the historical use of star-reading as a predictive science. obviously both astrology and mbti are deeply reactionary in this respect and belong to a larger trend toward attempting to categorise, measure, and taxonomise the psyche, tho an important difference here is that mbti has hereditarian elements, which no form of astrology that i know of does. i think astrology's shift in the personal-psychological direction has to do with a few different factors, including medical astrological practice (orthodox in the european middle ages, then varying degrees of heterodox from the early modern period onward) and self-help movements in the 20th century.
but in any case it, mbti, and similar attempts at psychometry are, like, staggeringly essentialist in conception and practice, and i do think their current popularity reflects some deeply reactionary tendencies amongst people who often (not always) consider themselves otherwise progressive or leftist. it's honestly kind of worrisome how many people will jump on a project that explicitly aims to define static and immutable human 'types' as long as it's dressed in quasi-spiritual or psy-scientific terminology. like i do think we all need to pause and think about the ideological ends and consequences of how we talk about each other and our bodies, minds, and birth circumstances 😵‍💫
948 notes · View notes
she-is-ovarit · 3 months ago
Text
Fuck off with the social constructivism worship.
Everybody easily swats away biological essentialism and understands how it can be wrong or even potentially used in eugenics arguments, yet nobody recognizes how social constructivism can be just as bad.
Pure social constructivism argues that everything is a social construct or socially determined. It downplays any sort of objective reality and outright denies biological science; therefore, it often operates as a form of scientific denialism.
It usually leads to epistemological relativism, where all knowledge is seen as socially constructed and therefore equally valid and creates a gas-lighting atmosphere in discussions in which it becomes difficult to ascertain accurate and reliable knowledge. If all knowledge is socially constructed, then how do we justify why scientific knowledge is more valued over psuedoscience?
It undermines objective reality because it argues that reality is socially constructed through language and social interactions, which blurs the lines between subjectivity and the objective truth. So people confuse the nature of reality with how we label it and, much like religion, implies the belief that humans are superior to other biological life because we're highly social animals - that biology is antiquated and objective reality is just how it's perceived.
It's inconsistent, completely ignores or downplays evolutionary and cognitive science, generally creates circular reasoning, and is usually used to justify or explain away things like patterns of oppression and unequal power dynamics and can be used as an assimilation tool.
In reality, most things pertaining to humans and our interactions and instances of behavior are rooted in both biology and the social - in both nature and nurture. Is it the environmental temperature of the oven, the eggs, the milk, or the batter that makes a cake - or is it the combination of all of these things?
So pure social constructivism like what exists on Tumblr is just as dangerous as pure biological essentialist thinking, is just as regressive and reductionist, is anti-science, and is just as easily utilized in eugenics and assimilation attempts. The difference is that it's internalized by the mainstream, status-quo, average liberal.
20 notes · View notes
discworldwitches · 5 months ago
Text
The newly emerging registers of sex/gender and sexuality were inextricably entwined through the hegemonic discourse of evolutionary theory. Determined to reorder dominant social hierarchies, scientists explained deviations of normative being and behavior in terms of a hetero-teleological scale of evolutionary development. Blacks, homosexuals, children, and women were situated at lower points on this scale than white heterosexual men, not able (or not yet able) to reach the highest stage of (hu)man evolution. The category of bisexuality played a central role in this linear model, and thus in the epistemological configuration of the category of sexuality (Angelides, 2001). The human differences of race, age, gender and sexuality were thought to be the effect of a specific temporal and spatial relation to what evolutionists and sexologists referred to as primordial hermaphroditism or embryological bisexuality. Believed to be the earliest form of human ancestry, primordial hermaphroditism, or bisexuality, as Frank Sulloway (1979, p. 179) points out, became the evolutionists “missing bisexual link.” This was confirmed by recapitulation theory, which posited that the human embryo repeated “in its own life history the life history of the race, passing through the lower forms of its ancestors on its way to maturity” (Russett, 1989, p. 50). In other words, as Charles Darwin (1927 [1871], p. 525) posited, every individual “bears rudiments of various accessory parts, appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belong[s] to the opposite sex.” This meant that blacks, women, children and homosexuals were thought to be the effect of an unsuccessful evolution, closer to, or retaining many more elements of, the originary (pre-historic) bisexuality of the human race and individual embryo. Put differently, an individual’s distance from this state of primordial bisexuality dictated the degree of one’s evolutionary advancement. Within this framework, therefore, the axes of race, age, gender and sexuality were defined and aligned by their very relation to bisexuality.
However, bisexuality posed a problem for sexological discourse. In the attempt to catalogue human sexual behavior, sexologists were [confronted] with the dilemma of containing its variant forms within the nascent and rigid oppositional categories of hetero- and homosexuality. After all, even in his 1897 publication, Sexual Inversion, Havelock Ellis (1897, p. 133) acknowledged the “person who is organically twisted into a shape that is more fitted for the exercise of the inverted than of the normal sexual impulse, or else equally fitted for both” (emphasis added). Similarly, Krafft-Ebing (1965, pp. 373-385) had identified what he called “psychical hermaphroditism.” Yet, sexology was unable to account for bisexuality as a form of sexuality. For instance, on the one hand, Ellis (1928 [1901], p. 88) claimed that “[t]here would seem to be a broad and simple grouping of all sexually functioning persons into three comprehensive divisions: the heterosexual, the bisexual, and the homosexual.” Yet, on the other hand, he affirmed like Krafft-Ebing, that “[m]ost of the bisexual prefer their own sex . . . [and that this] would seem to indicate that the bisexuals may really be inverts.” “In any case,” stated Ellis (1928 [1901], p. 278), “bisexuality merges imperceptibly into simple inversion.”
The difficulty for sexologists constrained by a linear logic of temporal succession was how to reconcile bisexuality as at one and the same time a biological cause (embryological bisexuality) and a psychological effect (bisexual identity). Ultimately, bisexuality as a form of sexuality or identity had to be refused in the present tense.5 That is to say that bisexuality always had to be somewhere else–in the embryo, the sphere of human prehistory–or something else–either really heterosexual or homosexual. It could never be a stable sexual identity in the here and now otherwise the epistemological integrity of the very categories of man, woman, heterosexual and homosexual would be thrown into doubt (Angelides, 2001).
steve angelides, historicizing bisexuality p. 130-132
9 notes · View notes
thebardostate · 1 year ago
Text
It's an interesting idea. Like most of the field of evolutionary psychology it's a just-so story speculating about subjective mental states. It's neither true nor false. It's perhaps best thought of as an interesting and original way to alter our perspective on our place in the natural world and look at it in a new way.
1 note · View note
frank-olivier · 4 months ago
Text
Explanatory & Comprehensive Realism: A perspective on reality and human potential
Understanding David Deutsch's worldview requires delving into the intricate interplay between science and philosophy that characterizes his work.
At the heart of Deutsch's philosophy is a robust epistemology influenced by Karl Popper. Deutsch champions the idea that knowledge is not static or absolute but is instead a dynamic process of conjecture and refutation. He posits that all problems are soluble, given the right knowledge, and that the growth of knowledge is potentially infinite. This perspective is crucial in understanding how humans can address and solve problems, including those that seem insurmountable, like disease, poverty, and even mortality. Deutsch's emphasis on "hard-to-vary" explanations highlights the importance of theories that withstand rigorous testing and criticism. These explanations are not only central to scientific progress but also to practical and moral reasoning. By applying this epistemological framework, Deutsch argues that we can continually improve our understanding of the world, leading to better decision-making and ethical considerations. Deutsch's support for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a testament to his belief in the vastness of reality. According to this interpretation, every quantum event spawns multiple parallel universes, each representing a different outcome. This view challenges the traditional notion of a singular, deterministic universe and opens up a realm of infinite possibilities. The multiverse concept aligns with Deutsch's broader thesis of infinite progress. It suggests that the universe is not limited by a single trajectory but is instead a tapestry of countless potential realities. This perspective not only influences his understanding of physics but also informs his views on human creativity and the potential for innovation. Deutsch's integration of evolutionary theory into his worldview underscores the importance of adaptation and complexity in the development of knowledge. By drawing on Richard Dawkins' ideas about replicators and memes, Deutsch explains how cultural and intellectual evolution parallels biological evolution. Memes, like genes, are subject to variation and selection, leading to the evolution of ideas and technologies. Computation plays a crucial role in Deutsch's framework, as it represents the ability to simulate and understand complex systems. He views the universe itself as a computational entity, where transformations are governed by information and algorithms. This perspective suggests that by understanding the principles of computation, humans can harness the power of technology to create and transform reality. The concept of the universal constructor is a cornerstone of Deutsch's constructor theory. A universal constructor is a hypothetical machine capable of performing any physically possible transformation. While humans are not yet universal constructors, Deutsch envisions a future where technological advancements could bring us closer to this ideal. This idea reflects his optimism about human potential and the transformative power of knowledge. Deutsch believes that, through creativity and innovation, humans can overcome current limitations and achieve unprecedented progress. This vision aligns with his rejection of "deathism"—the acceptance of death as inevitable—and his advocacy for scientific research aimed at extending human life. Deutsch's ideas, while bold and imaginative, have sparked debate and criticism. Some critics argue that his application of scientific concepts to areas like aesthetics and moral philosophy is less convincing. They question whether the principles of physics and computation can fully account for the complexities of human experience and ethical decision-making.
David Deutsch's worldview offers a vision of the future, grounded in the potential for infinite progress through knowledge creation. By emphasizing the importance of explanations, creativity, and the integration of diverse scientific and philosophical domains, his ideas provide a framework for addressing contemporary challenges and unlocking human potential. As societies continue to navigate an increasingly complex world, Deutsch's perspective serves as a reminder of the transformative power of knowledge and the limitless possibilities that lie ahead.
Chiara Marletto: Paradigm Shift, Ghost Particles, Constructor Theory (Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal, January 2024)
youtube
Wednesday, September 4, 2024
3 notes · View notes
ghelgheli · 1 year ago
Note
curious about the mesoudi? surely its not just social darwinism right
(re: Towards a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution [doi] and Is Human Cultural Evolution Darwinian? [doi], both by Alex Mesoudi, Andrew Whiten, Kevin N. Laland and listed on my september reading list)
nope, not at all! the thrust of both articles is similar: that those academic disciplines dedicated to studying the state and change of human culture (broadly construed—this captures linguistics, archaeology, sociology...) can benefit epistemically and methodologically from the wisdom of a century of work in evolutionary biology and its related umbrella as gained through a darwinian understanding of evolution
an example i'd give of where this has happened in a convergent sort of way (but still, imo, needs to happen more) is in the case of linguistic typology. the development of comparative and therefore historical linguistics in the 19th century, thru a wittgensteinian turn in the early 20th century, thru to today, destabilizes epistemologies that hold languages as fixed natural kinds, and sociolinguistic work (as well as an honest metaphysics of language) ought to destabilize the notion that languages are any sort of essential kind at all. the understanding of language as a relational phenomenon that only exists insofar as it is instantiated helps us understand why speaking of "a language" as an abstraction can only ever be the work of inventing taxonomies to describe vague and varying uses of language between people who are never really speaking the same platonic object of a language (i am definitely stepping on some realist toes here but i do not care. i've had professors who think that languages have some kind of independent metaphysical existence and this is honestly silly). this problematizes dialect/language distinctions and indeed ought to direct the sort of work any descriptive linguist does. if you think about it this is exactly the kind of destabilization that darwin offered to the use of natural kinds in biology. a species is not really a thing with an essence; it is a convenient generalization that is often vague, can be misleading, flattens variation, etc. (consider ring species, or paleontological work of building taxonomies of evolutionary history)
the first article gives an example (among many others) analogizing paleobiology with archaeology in the following way: inheritance is axiomatic to understanding fossil records, and those records are analyzed with evolutionary relationships via inheritance in mind. morphological similarities are no accident, but evidence of a genealogical relationship. in a similar way (they say—i'm now leaving my own wheelhouse) archaeology seems to have only recently adopted the methods of trying to analyze relationships between artifacts in the record thru inheritance. this is to be distinguished with firm lines drawn between different material "cultures" where one is supposed to have supplanted the other in a sort of punctuated equilibrium or displacement. instead, records of e.g. arrowtip morphology can be sorted according to similarity, and interpreted as a sequence of inherited cultural practice that changes over time according to "mutations". this also allows for taxonomies of ancestry, where families of material cultures can be hypothesized to descend from common material ancestors on the basis of inherited similarities
obviously the big one in this discussion, tho, is replicator dynamics. and the articles do mention memetics as the abortive attempt at applying replicator dynamics to human culture. what i think is done well is a complication of the conception of biological replicators as straightforward: biological inheritance can be rather more complicated than the gene coding for a trait (they give examples of overlapping, movable, and nested genes), and it isn't a priori a wrench in the machine that hypothetical cultural replicators would not be simply describable. they argue that it can be useful in a discipline like cogsci to try and develop an epistemology of discretized meme-like objects that could, perhaps, be tracked with more fine-grained observational methods than what we have now (there's a rather goofy paragraph about mirror neurons, which are far more contested than popular wisdom would have us think, but the article is from 2006)
now, this is where i think the analogy can sometimes be taken too far—but, to their credit, they don't do this in either article. because there is a tradition i've complained about On Here a number of times of using computational evolutionary biology to try and model cultural phenomena, and i just don't think that can achieve the complexity nor robustness that would be required, nor do i think it holds a candle to alternative methods we have available to us (like, you know, the science of historical materialism—which is in its own way, in the destabilization of kinds, stasis, and "progress" that dialectics offers and the uncompromising analysis of historical facts as proceeding from earlier facts, darwinian). these methods find purchase in evolutionary biology because, for all the genetic complexities involved, the notion of biological fitness is well-defined, as is biological inheritance, and the games that can be played in this sense have robust analogies to real-world competition (e.g. cautious ritual signalling between, say, stags). i'm very skeptical that this is something anyone is going to be able to do with the multiply more complex phenomena of intragenerational behaviour and culture. my immediate impression of anyone who claims to have done so, numerically, is that they fancy themselves the first hari seldon. but anyway, that's just to temper the optimism here. i think the essential thesis is strong.
4 notes · View notes
wigster07 · 2 years ago
Note
Thank you to everyone who asked questions about A/A vaginal penetration because my dumbass was already halfway down the path of a bunch of questions about evolutionary and endocrinological workings of ABO reproduction and, y’know, I’m just going to shut up and sit down over here to wait fir the next chapter so I don’t fall down another epistemological wikihole. 😅
Lol
You ask away and I'll do my best to work out lore within our verse. If anyone else dares the ABO for Tanthamore I hope they explore other options that'll fit their verse.
That's the beauty of ABO. It is what we make it.
2 notes · View notes
elisabethbabarci · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
EXAMINATION OF TROMPE-L’OEIL
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrariwise, what it is, it wouldn’t be, and what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” — Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass
This statement stands as a prime example of epistemology, to which philosophers use to refer to our internal construct or internal belief about existence or the world around us as either literal or figurative. We as humans adopt a metaphysical persona to conceal our true self within for a myriad of reasons (trauma, disassociation with the self, departure from reality, or to so to speak creating a façade to not reveal our true authentic genuine self). When we construct the illusion or the trompe-l’œil it either represents a shield or a form of escapism from our existence around us. The inherent truth is that we need to accept who we are without consequence, bring forth our genuine nature, pay no mind to what others construct about ourself, and most importantly live our true authentic purpose. You can not be someone else, you can not mimic others achievements, you must be true to you. No amount of smoothing out the fondant can conceal the cracks within the interior foundation. Loss of self represents cracks in your foundation. You cannot live life living anothers process, path, dream, or vision, you have to stay true to your lived reality, meaning your internal construct. Unconditional love and unconditional acceptance cannot occur when we can not accept ourselves truly. Embrace who you truly are without dramatics, creating veneers, façades, or shielding. Give yourself the permission to be vulnerable and open to all experiences that life has to offer, that is the essence of life. You are either trapped in a bell jar, reflecting within the looking glass, placing a magnifying glass on your intricate delicate or fragile core wounds, or are embracing your spectrum of kaleidoscope of colours being your true self.
Within our imagination, within the minds eye, we construct realities as a coping mechanism to navigate the complexities of life. Life for some has become insulated and insular due to traumatic experiences or unresolved core roots which stem from fear. Whether these have manifested within our past lives which are then represented or presented within our present or within this lifetime of our existence we have encountered severe metaphysical cuts that force us to rationalize that we have no other recourse than to be cautious within our life forcing reasoning, rationality, and practicality to the side. When one operates out of their deep core wounds, they then operate based on their autopilot responses resulting from trauma. The core root is, when we encounter another within this lifetime, do we really fully understand the intricacies of their existence? If someone wills or chooses to close the door or deny access to fully embrace who they are out of fear that they will not be tolerated, accepted, supported, loved, seen, or valued, we may be receiving their illusionary construct or their shield that they chose to present to the world.
The dangers of adoption of a false self or barrier will lead to further fragmentation as the authentic genuine self is shielded due to an external fear of the outside influence and the world within itself. What if for one moment, we all decided to strip those layers to unveil the magnificence and beauty within? If we restrict access to experiences, we hinder and impede our evolutionary and ascension process. To be fluid and to experience life within its entirety it is essential to remove restraints, restrictions or impediments to unveil or reveal the obstacles that are burrowed deep within our soul. When you face or challenge your fear, you then learn self reflection, self love, self care, self respect and most importantly self recovery. If we are not honest with ourselves about what hurts us deep within our core, how then do we fully understand or comprehend how to ask for help? The issue is, core roots are like quagmires or gyres, it is like paddling through mud in a canoe, you can mask the pain for a limited amount of time until it becomes unbearable and it starts to fester or manifest in other aspects of life.
Our environment is crucial during recovery and the more pressure you place on the self to not be authentic or to shield your genuine intentions, dreams, visions, or goals, the more you will become paralyzed and stagnated within your existence. If you construct a life based on lies, it will tumble down like a house of cards, because every layer is not within the intention of your highest good or moral principles, it is based on a veneer or façade which has been meticulously constructed. If you do not understand yourself, or you deny yourself the right or privilege to love yourself or trust yourself, how then can you expect to fully have a functioning loving relationship within your orbit? It is a cascading illusion and once you recognize that you may not be holding the pen to your life due to allowing external forces control your very essence or existence, only then, will you recognize the power of choice. Our choices define us, and what we allow within our life or surround ourselves with becomes our existence. If you seek freedom, you may be feeling restricted. If you feel anger, ask yourself, what within this particular circumstance or within your construct that you may need to change? — the issues that angers our core within represents unresolved wounds that are now being repeated for our learning experience. If you deny a lesson, you will be faced with it in other forms. If we feel tired, are you forcing yourself to be on overdrive without any rest? And simply if you are sad or depressed, what is it about life that you cannot bear or swallow any further? You need to be real with yourself, and stop looking externally when you need to remain within peace to reflect internally. Chaos around you — ask yourself, what ideology or principles have you allowed or accepted? Change starts with yourself.
We as humans have a propensity to conceal, hide, veil, or shield ourselves from the outside world. We are paradoxical in nature as we can be both introverted and extroverted at the same period of time dependant on the frequency of the situations we may encounter. The main focal point that needs to be addressed is why we stagnate our own progress or movement or deny access to experiences which facilitate and foster our growth within our existence.
Are we truly seeing the true self? Do we stop bearing our soul due to an experience or fragmentation? Have we become addicted to encrypting our hard drive to not allow anyone to come within our circumference? Are the walls we build for self preservation or to serve as permanent barriers because we are not able to function within our lived experiences or society? Have these illusionary boundaries or barriers disabled or caused impediments on our progress within life? Is it fostered by fear of safety? Are we denying access to those that may help us out of our comfort zone, our sacred shell, that we have nestled into for comfort and refuge?
When one experiences fragmentation of the soul we either become insular or begin to take it out on our external environment. So often many will criticize those that are overweight or are covering themselves with multiple layers of clothing. What is the core root? Protection. When we are unable to allow ourselves to feel vulnerability we will either metaphysically shield ourselves or we will place a protective barrier around ourselves through weight. Nourish your body, and allow yourself the permission to feel love and comfort. Your body does not determine your worth, and no amount of dieting or shielding will prevent the internal dialogue and work that is needed for your recovery. It is imperative during your recovery to rest, rejuvinate, resolve, and rebuild within your own pace or incremental time period. Recovery is essential because it gives us a perspective, a hiatus, a reset so to speak to really recognize or comprehend where your alignment is within yourself. We cannot look to fix others until we have fully recovered from our own internal trauma. You need to ask yourself, within life do you feel dismounted, dismantled, disabled, or pushed off of your pedestal? Are you allowing your ego to overtake or eclipse your progress? What has harmed you to your core? Do you recognize that you are able, willing, and courageous enough to restore yourself back to perfect health? Believe in yourself again.
How we choose to navigate life, is dependant on the experiences, circumstances, and situations that shaped our moral fabric or foundations of our life. It is essential to integrate the knowledge, wisdom, advice, guidance, and extracted fundamental lessons however, those experiences that remain buried within our construct that caused deep unresolved core wounds or fragmentation of our essence or soul is what we truly need to examine. When one masters the self, you master the mind.
Why do we place ourselves into situations that cause us further turbulence or conflict? The answer ? When the soul is lost, when we steer away from our aligned path, or we intake negative constructs, repeat negative patterns that are detrimental, or allow situations to overtake our freedom, we then set a standard for what we accept, and that within itself teaches others what we feel we deserve. The energy, time, frequency, vibrations that we allow or focus on is what we will receive. Only once the lesson is learned do we experience true emancipation.
We have to ask ourselves , what was a period time that caused significant damage to our psyche or construct that forever changed how we perceived life around us or shook our moral foundation to its core? Why do we give power to the past? Do we as individuals place a protective barrier around ourselves to shield from the outside world , why? Boundaries? Inability to open our heart, mind and soul once again? Why do we self inflict a negative construct or stereotype upon ourselves, it is like injecting negative frequency into our mind, body, soul, and heart. We need to become more transparent, and take full recognition and accountability for how we feel within. If we then seek to blame our external environment for the way we feel within, we will perpetuate a cascading effect of blame and further devoid our inherent right for self analysis and rehabilitation. Own how you feel, accept it, release it, and learn from it.
When we become more open, see the world as safe to reside in, partake in activities that bring us passion, joy, achievement and unconditional love we then chip away at the layers that weighed heavy upon our construct and soul. We need to keep in check how we speak to ourselves, what ideologies we accept about ourselves and most importantly how we allow others to manifest and exist within our paradigms. You can not heal in the same environments that have caused you to become ill or the worst version of yourself — extract yourself. Give yourself the permission to allow others the opportunity to help you. You inherently deserve the right to be seen, valued, heard, appreciated, supported and loved.
We are not chameleons, or masters of disguise who must blend within our environments, we are individual sparks of infinite light within with a unique individual spectrum. To live your life unseen, unheard, or to place yourself as low importance, is detrimental not only to the psyche but to the soul. You matter, you do not need to receive affirmation from another to recognize that you are the most important person within your life and you deserve to fully embrace your dreams, visions, goals, and deepest desires. You do not need to mimic anothers progress to be worthy, you have to embrace your own imprint. Adopt solace within yourself, to receive comfort or consolation during your greatest moments of fragmentation or distress. You deserve to exist, you are not born of misfortune, you are not a burden, you represent diverse views and are a colourful expression of life. Embrace trust, faith, and confidence within yourself.
1 note · View note
omegaphilosophia · 3 months ago
Text
Theories of Personality
Theories of personality aim to explain how and why individuals differ in their patterns of behavior, thinking, and emotions. There are several major theories that attempt to describe and categorize personality traits and development.
1. Psychoanalytic Theory (Sigmund Freud)
Core Idea: Freud’s theory of personality revolves around the interaction of the id (basic instincts), ego (rational thought), and superego (moral standards). He believed that personality develops through early childhood experiences and unconscious conflicts.
Structure of Personality: Freud proposed that the unconscious mind plays a key role in shaping behavior and personality, with unresolved internal conflicts influencing behavior.
Defense Mechanisms: Freud also suggested that individuals use defense mechanisms, such as repression or denial, to cope with anxiety and protect their self-image.
Stages of Development: The theory includes psychosexual stages (oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stages), with conflicts at each stage influencing adult personality.
2. Humanistic Theory (Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow)
Core Idea: Humanistic theories emphasize personal growth, free will, and self-actualization. These theories view humans as inherently good, striving to reach their full potential.
Self-Actualization: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs posits that individuals move through a series of needs, from basic physiological needs to self-actualization, where they fulfill their potential and experience personal growth.
Carl Rogers’ Person-Centered Theory: Rogers introduced the concept of the self-concept, which is how people perceive themselves. He believed that for individuals to achieve their full potential, they need an environment that provides genuineness, acceptance, and empathy.
Unconditional Positive Regard: Rogers argued that receiving unconditional love and acceptance is key to developing a healthy personality and self-esteem.
3. Trait Theory (Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck)
Core Idea: Trait theories suggest that personality is made up of broad, enduring traits or characteristics that determine behavior.
Gordon Allport: He identified three types of traits: cardinal traits (dominant traits that define an individual), central traits (general traits that form the basic foundation of personality), and secondary traits (more specific traits that appear in certain situations).
Raymond Cattell: Cattell used factor analysis to identify 16 personality factors, suggesting that a combination of these factors defines a person’s unique personality.
Hans Eysenck: Eysenck's model focused on three dimensions of personality: extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-stability, and psychoticism (related to aggressiveness and antisocial tendencies).
4. The Big Five (Five-Factor Model)
Core Idea: The Big Five personality traits are the most widely accepted framework for understanding personality. These traits are thought to exist along a continuum, and people fall at different points within these five dimensions:
Openness to Experience: Creative, curious, open to new ideas vs. traditional, routine-oriented.
Conscientiousness: Organized, responsible, goal-oriented vs. careless, impulsive.
Extraversion: Sociable, outgoing vs. introverted, reserved.
Agreeableness: Cooperative, compassionate vs. antagonistic, competitive.
Neuroticism: Emotionally unstable, anxious vs. emotionally stable, calm.
This model is considered to capture the basic structure of personality across different cultures and contexts.
5. Social-Cognitive Theory (Albert Bandura)
Core Idea: Personality is shaped by the interaction between personal factors (cognitive abilities, beliefs, emotions), behavior, and environment. This is known as reciprocal determinism.
Self-Efficacy: Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy, which is the belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations. High self-efficacy leads to more persistence and confidence in challenging tasks, while low self-efficacy can lead to avoidance of difficult situations.
Observational Learning: Bandura also emphasized the role of modeling and observational learning in personality development, arguing that people learn behaviors and emotional responses by observing others.
6. Behaviorist Theory (B.F. Skinner)
Core Idea: Behaviorists argue that personality is the result of learned behaviors, shaped by rewards and punishments in an individual's environment.
Operant Conditioning: Skinner focused on operant conditioning, where behavior is influenced by reinforcement (positive or negative) or punishment. Over time, individuals develop consistent behavioral patterns based on their experiences with rewards and consequences.
Environmental Determinism: Behaviorists view personality as a product of the external environment rather than internal traits or unconscious forces.
7. Biological and Evolutionary Theories (Hans Eysenck, David Buss)
Core Idea: Biological theories emphasize that personality traits have genetic underpinnings and that human behavior is influenced by evolutionary processes.
Eysenck’s Biological Basis of Personality: Eysenck proposed that personality traits like extraversion and neuroticism are linked to biological differences in brain arousal and functioning.
Evolutionary Psychology: David Buss and other evolutionary psychologists argue that personality traits evolved to solve problems related to survival and reproduction. For instance, traits like aggression or cooperation may have developed as adaptive strategies in human evolutionary history.
8. Cognitive-Behavioral Theory
Core Idea: This theory integrates elements from both cognitive and behavioral psychology. It suggests that cognitive processes (thought patterns, beliefs) play a crucial role in determining behavior and, therefore, personality.
Aaron Beck’s Cognitive Theory: Beck emphasized how automatic thoughts and cognitive distortions (like overgeneralization or catastrophic thinking) shape personality and emotional responses.
Cognitive Restructuring: In cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), individuals learn to identify and change negative thought patterns, which in turn influences their behavior and personality over time.
9. Narrative Identity Theory
Core Idea: Narrative identity theory suggests that individuals construct a life story or narrative to make sense of their experiences and define their identity. This narrative evolves over time, reflecting personal growth, values, and social influences.
Dan McAdams: McAdams proposed that personal identity is shaped by the stories we tell about ourselves. People seek coherence and meaning in their life stories, which reflect their personality traits, goals, and values.
This approach emphasizes that personality is not just a set of static traits but an evolving narrative shaped by personal choices and experiences.
10. Existential and Phenomenological Theories
Core Idea: These theories focus on individual experience, freedom, and the search for meaning. Existential psychologists like Rollo May and Viktor Frankl argue that personality is shaped by how individuals confront fundamental existential questions, such as the meaning of life, freedom, and death.
Frankl's Logotherapy: Viktor Frankl emphasized the importance of finding meaning in life, even in suffering, as the central drive in human behavior. He believed that the quest for meaning shapes personality and behavior.
Authenticity and Choice: Existential psychology stresses that individuals are responsible for their own choices, and living authentically means confronting existential realities and making choices in alignment with one’s values.
Theories of personality offer different perspectives on the factors that shape human behavior and individual differences. From Freud’s focus on unconscious drives to the modern trait theories like the Big Five, these approaches explore the intricate dynamics of behavior, thought, and emotion that constitute personality.
8 notes · View notes
sanguinifex · 3 months ago
Text
Well, atheism is still a system of belief, it's an assertion that God (usually the Christian god in particular, for the stereotypical asshole atheist) isn't real. The stereotypical asshole atheist typically also believes in "rationalism," i.e. what they think rationalism is, which usually boils down to "I can retroactively justify everything I already believe an call it rational/evolutionary biology/etc," so if they're justifying homophobia by saying "It's bad because can't reproduce," that's at least a quasi-religious argument, epistemologically speaking.
Not to discourage atheism in general, though I personally lean agnostic, just that atheism (and agnosticism) don't preclude irrational or retroactively justified belief structures.
of course there are plenty of gay Catholics even though the church is unequivocally homophobic, just as there are plenty of gay Jewish people living in communities with homophobic rabbis and gay Muslims living in communities with homophobic imams, so the existence of gay people cannot shield a religion from critique when that sect is prejudiced against those very same people.
and of course there are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects that are not particularly homophobic or even specifically repudiate homophobia, which is great, even if they are descended from those that are.
(and there are homophobic atheists no doubt, as refuting the supernatural doesn’t mean you can’t be an asshole, it just means you can’t justify your behaviour on religious grounds).
182 notes · View notes
transmutationisms · 11 months ago
Note
came across a post by astriiformes (astriiformes(.)tumblr(.)com/post/742882591316803584/hi-i-just-learned-about-the-scientific-revolution) that objected to Kuhn's theory of scientific revolution on the basis that they felt it leant in to the "great men of history" model. I never understood it this way, but I haven't read the book—I thought it was more about explaining the lag between accumulation of evidence that goes against the current paradigm and full paradigm shift. thoughts?
kuhn's model of 'paradigm shifts' is certainly prone to inviting 'great man' explanations of scientific developments. i would even go further, and say that this is due to a fundamental issue in kuhn's methodology, which is a tendency toward idealist analysis that fails to consider material and sociological factors. astriiformes points out that these days, kuhn is more popular with economists and political scientists than with practicing historians of science; this is true and not a coincidence.
astriiformes also walks through a valuable line of objection to kuhn, which is that the scientists we tend to credit with having made singlehanded discoveries were in fact usually embedded in vibrant scientific communities and ongoing debates, and were influenced by their contemporaries as well as their intellectual forebears. this is all true. another critical angle to interrogate here, and one where the Great Man often pops up again, is in kuhn's version of how scientific ideas are actually adopted: in other words, how he considers a 'paradigm shift' to actually occur, even once we assume the idea in question has already been formulated. let me chuck a few case studies at you because it's easier than talking in generalities.
for much of the 20th century, the 'standard story' of galileo's trial and imprisonment was that, having dared to become a lone voice defending heliocentrism, he was made a martyr to truth by the church, which was threatened on theological grounds. however, in the last several decades historians of science have studied much more seriously the patronage networks of renaissance italy: the structure of funding and epistemological authority whereby a scientist like galileo secured money, university or court positions, and respect by gaining mutually beneficial relationships with various nobles and other wealthy people. galileo had defended heliocentrism prior to the church's crackdown on him and his work; so had certain other astronomers. although it's true the church had theological objections to what galileo was saying, they were pretty much forced to tolerate him as long as he had sufficient patronage protection: wealthy, powerful people using their social clout to defend him. but this fragile truce was shattered when galileo lost the support of certain of his patrons, particularly some jesuits, in the early 1630s and thus became a much more vulnerable target of church censorship. it was only at this point that the church placed him on trial and then eventually under house arrest, and forced to recant.
evolutionary ('transmutationist') ideas were not new by the time darwin published the 'origin' in 1859. most french biologists at this time supported some variant of transmutationist ideas, and even in britain, transmutation of species had long been hotly discussed in the edinburgh medical schools in particular. the challenge for the wealthier london gentleman-naturalist set was that transmutationism had previously been associated with radical, materialist, atheist politics (this was precisely what appealed for many in edinburgh), and although evolutionary ideas had circulated in the wider reading public, these had typically been carefully framed to remain compatible with dominant anglican morals (eg, robert chambers's 'vestiges' of 1844). so, why were charles darwin's ideas accepted where others had been suppressed, ignored, or mired in controversy? a few reasons: again, a strong patronage network and powerful social connections (familial and personal); also, darwin very consciously avoided talking about human descent in 1859 (he did not do so until 1871's 'descent of man', which remains less widely read to this day) and avoided open avowal of materialism or atheism in his published works. furthermore, despite what lay histories may suggest nowadays, darwin's ideas were not embraced immediately or uncritically. they circulated piecemeal, with the help of 'popularisers' like haeckel and th huxley whose teachings often varied pretty widely from what darwin actually said or thought. and, prior to the 'modern synthesis' unifying 'darwinian' evolution with mendelian genetics, one of the most common objections to darwin's ideas was that he had provided proof of no actual mechanism of heredity, which resulted in a retrospectively fascinating period of anglo and french scientific writing between about 1890–1940 that often circulated the claim that darwin had been proven embarrassingly wrong, and it was jean-baptiste lamarck who had instead been vindicated by the biologists of the middle victorian era.
louis pasteur has historically been credited with ushering out the last vestiges of 'miasmatic' and 'environmentalist' theories of disease in france, and replacing them with good solid bacteriology. this is simply a misrepresentation of scientific beliefs among the lay public, technical experts like public health officials, and even working scientists under the third republic. because hygienists and sanitation engineers had spent much of the 19th century creating professional prestige for themselves as managers of the insalubrious environmental factors plaguing particularly the urban poor, you can imagine they were not generally thrilled at the proposition that someone had actually confirmed the existence of a microscopic 'germ' of disease, a foreign entity that could be studied and eradicated by a laboratory scientist with entirely different credentials and training. so, as it became clear that the actual eradication part was still a challenge, and that disease risk did not strike all people or demographics equally, french hygienists by and large simply altered their rhetoric a little. yes, germs existed—in fact, clearly, these were what the hygienists had been protecting people from all along by encouraging cleaner air, open spaces, gymnastic exercise, &c! this is the root of what's now known in the historical literature as the 'sanitary-bacteriological synthesis'—not an overturning of an old 'environmentalist' paradigm for a modern bacteriological one, but rather a melding of the two that enfolded pasteur's and koch's discoveries whilst still shoring up the professional authority of the hygienists and sanitarians.
in all three of these cases you can see how a strictly kuhnian analysis of 'paradigm shifts' over-emphasises the role of the Great Man (here in his guise as Genius Scientist) because it overlooks critical factors like the social and professional networks that actually allow knowledge to spread, and the professional and pecuniary interests that motivate people, consciously or not, when they evaluate new theories or ideas. galileo did not suffer from 'failing' to spark a paradigm shift, any more than darwin singlehandedly succeeded; their ideas circulated, mutated, and provoked on the strength of relationships as much as pure cerebral Theory. pasteur's claims likely could not have achieved the renown they did, had they not been helped along by hygienists who saw in them a change to re-form and reinforce their own profession and authority.
kuhn's work was an important departure from earlier positivist, largely teleological histories of science: the 'paradigm shift' allowed people to talk about massive and notable changes in science without having to accede to a model that assumed constant, linear progress. in this sense, much of today's history of science (still a comparatively immature and evolving field!) belongs to a citational lineage that will eventually pop up with kuhn's name. but, methodologically, kuhn leaves a lot to be desired, because his analysis is generally founded in an intellectual history that configures Science as a world of disembodied ideas unburdened by social, material, and economic considerations and practices.
55 notes · View notes
sinterhinde · 1 year ago
Text
Tumblr media
Abstract Sex, Luciana Parisi, 2004
Abstract Sex investigates the impact of advances in contemporary science and information technology on conceptions of sex. Evolutionary theory and the technologies of viral information transfer, cloning and genetic engineering are changing the way we think about human sex, reproduction and the communication of genetic information. Abstract Sex presents a philosophical exploration of this new world of sexual, informatic and capitalist multiplicity, of the accelerated mutation of nature and culture.
(duke.edu)
Luciana Parisi is Reader in Cultural Studies and Director of the PhD programme at the Centre for Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths University of London. Her research focuses on philosophy and science to investigate potential conditions for ontological and epistemological change in culture, aesthetic and politics.
Specifically engaging with cybernetics, information theories, and evolutionary theories, her work analyses the radical transformations of the body, nature, matter and thought led by the technocapitalist development of biotechnologies and computation.
In 2004, she published Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Biotechnology and the Mutations of Desire (Continuum). She has also written within the field of media philosophy and analysed the bionic transformation of the perceptive sensorium triggered by digital media, the advancement of new techno-ecologies of control, and the nanoengineering of matter.
She has published articles on the cybernetic re-wiring of memory and perception in the context of a non-phenomenological critique of computational media vis a vis strategies of branding and marketing. Her interest in interactive media has also led her research to engage more closely with computation, cognition, and algorithmic aesthetics.
In 2013, she published Contagious Architecture. Computation, Aesthetics and the Control of Space (MIT Press).
(monoskop.org)
Here is the link again:
And here is a recent lecture Parisi presented at Stanford Humanities Center on The Negative Aesthetic of AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qdsd-HhwQI&ab_channel=StanfordHumanitiesCenter
1 note · View note
selormohene · 1 year ago
Text
day 119 (monday, october 30th 2023)
Here’s something on Goodman-style metaphysics that I was thinking about on my way back from the Nai Palm concert on Sunday (which was lovely btw). So Goodman (and Rorty, and I guess probably Carol Rovane, and maybe Thomas Kuhn, but definitely Goodman and Rorty) think there’s no sense to be made of the way the world is, whereas most realist metaphysicians think that there is a way the world is. But here’s what I’d say. We can say how the world is under this or that aspect; we can also say, under this or that aspect, how the world is. But we cannot say what the world is like under no aspect whatsoever, except to say that it is such as to appear (or be, because appearance is just being-under-an-aspect) a certain way under this aspect, or another way under that aspect. But none this is the same as to say there are many worlds, or that there is no world at all and only aspects, or that there is no way the world is, nor is it of course to say, of a way the world is under an aspect, that that’s the way the world is objectively, or under no aspect. (Though you could say, with Dummett and perhaps with Berkeley, and probably with David Bentley Hart, and maybe with Leibniz, that there is no such thing as the way the world is objectively if that means the way it is under no aspect, but the way the world is objectively is the way it is under an aspect, only that this is the way it is under a privileged aspect, that under which God sees it.)
This relates to two ways in which the word “objective” is used in philosophy, especially by Kantians. (And you can add pragmatists to the analysis here, because you might think of pragmatism as a post-Kantian project; in Dewey it’s explicitly a post-Hegelian project, but in either way it’s a form of critical metaphysics which attempts — and I think explicitly so, in the light of British and American idealism and Hegelianism, and the various other currents of thought like evolutionary epistemology or whatever it was, whatever de Laguna and co were doing, that were active in that time — to explain the nature of things in terms of the nature of the possibility of our cognitive relation to things. And a similar thing is true of Foucault, Heidegger and the French phenomenologists and existentialists; they were all philosophers of constitution, in one or another sense.) But anyway, two senses of “objective”: there’s “relating to the possibility of cognition of objects,” call it constitutive, and then there’s “independent of any subject’s contribution, whether or not you think that subjective constitution is transcendental or universal or constitutive or a necessary condition on objects’ showing up to beings at all,” let’s call this transcendent objectivity. I always found it irritating when people respond to the criticism that Kant is a postmodernist because he undermines the notion of objectivity by saying that actually no, he’s establishing and defending the very idea of objectivity. Like there’s a clear equivocation in the senses of objectivity in question. And even though the critique that Kant was a postmodernist may well be due for the most part to people of the “reason and objectivity and facts and logic are the bedrock of Western Civilisation” persuasion, unregenerate anti-woke modernists if you want a name for that type of guy, there’s nonetheless a reason why those people make the critique. If anything you could read Kant as having shown that transcendent objectivity is either an empty notion with no content, serving only as the conceptual limit to what is in fact knowable or meaningfully thought of as existing (that’s one version of the the “two aspects” view of Kant), or that transcendent objective reality is not an empty notion but an unknowable one, there may or may not be a reality independent of perception but there’s nothing to be known about it, we can only presume what we’d need to be there for us to be able to carry on as we do (in assuming freedom etc.) and otherwise we must hope for the best. 
In any case, post-Kantian philosophy went off in either of two directions and both of them were clearly a response to this very dilemma. The first, which was rationalist and had its culmination in Hegel, although Marx carried it in quite a different direction and Habermas and the later constitutivists like Rawls and Korsgaard returned to the more Hegelian spirit of things albeit in their own way, sought to establish that if you took the universalist aspects of constitutive objectivity as far as it could go, you got something that was either tantamount to or as good as transcendent objectivity (or even better, because transcendent objectivity was an illusion and what you got was as real as reality gets — and this last sentiment is something that Marx shares with the contemporary Kantian rationalists). But the other strain, which had its early expression in Kierkegaard, and in Nietzsche although we perhaps shouldn’t think of him as pursuing a project in the wake of Kant per se, and later got expression in existentialism and post-structuralism, was basically abandoning both the possibility of transcendent objectivity and sought to take constitutive objectivity to its limit without any hope of rescuing the claim of its universality. And the fact that generations of thinkers did see this as a natural outgrowth of a tradition that did in fact come from Kant is no mistake and that’s what people who say Kant invented postmodernism are saying, or at least that’s the grain of truth in their critique.
0 notes