62d The Fourth Dewey Lecture

John Dewey was deeply influenced by the findings of Darwin and his theory of evolution. He not only was a philosopher but also a psychologist. So he approached the phenomenon 'knowledge' from two perspectives. From Darwin he learned that knowledge is an adaptive human response to environing conditions aimed at an active restructuring of these conditions.. This had consequences for the theory of knowledge. The traditional philosophy held that thought as a subjective primitive was the material from which knowledge was composed. Dewey stayed close to nature and interpreted knowledge as the product of the interaction between organism and environment, and knowledge as having practical instrumentality in the guidance and control of that interaction. The organism interacts with the world through self-guided activity that coordinates and integrates sensory and motor responses. The implication for the theory of knowledge was clear: the world is not passively perceived and thereby known; active manipulation of the environment is involved integrally in the process of learning from the start. This means that knowledge is not a static given but a process and that any proposition accepted as an item of knowledge has this status only provisionally, in other worlds...just a coincidence that it works. It soon can be replaced by an better proposition. This approach had serious consequences for the concept of truth. The tradional way of defining truth was a kind of one on one correspondence between a known fact or idea and a state of affairs or reality. Dewey maintained that an idea agrees with reality, and is therefore true, if and only if it is successfully employed in human action in pursuit of human goals and interests, that is, if it leads to the resolution of a problematic situation in Dewey's terms. How does this process of acquiring knowledge work? When the normal paterns of acting of the organism are disrupted, it shall go on to master the new situation. The next step is to establish the most significant characteristics of the situation, so that these can be formulated as a solvable problem. Next step will be to formulate hypotheses which will create a solution. Then reason will organize and evaluate the different hypotheses, which means investigate and consider to what experiences each hypothesis will lead. At the end of this process we have the final testing of the hypotheses which eventually leads to a new truth. For those of you familiar with scientific methodology it may be a " I know the drill" experience. This approach led to the famous remark of Dewey "the truth is that what works". We are only justified to accept a hypothesis if it works, each claim of "corresponding with the truth" is in the eyes of Dewey a metaphysical claim, which adds nothing to what we already know about the hypothesis or what we can do with it. Thus knowledge isn't a one on one corrspondence with reality, but an instrument, a process to survive as a learning organism. One final remark addressing Sage, who couldnt attend this class today but definitely will read the blog: I see no relation between phenomenology and Dewey's ideas. I tried to understand Husserl's ideas today again.....dead end.. And you, my friends, we will learn what phenomenology means and who Edmund Husserl is in the future and I will be happy when I can call it the past for that is the only philosophical school with which I really cant do anything. So be prepared for some fun....(^_^) The Discussion [13:36] Corona Anatine: ye all very wel Herman [13:36] Corona Anatine: but here is an external reality of some form to outside [13:37] Corona Anatine: whether we can ascertain knowledge of it is another matter [13:37] Corona Anatine: but it does exist [13:37] Corona Anatine: independent of research [13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: corona, corona, the sun is shining [13:38] Alaya Kumaki: to say that it is outside is an hypothese [13:38] Corona Anatine: argh [13:38] Corona Anatine: ok define the leter a [13:38] Herman Bergson: next lecture we'll discuss this issue....the existence of the external world [13:38] Corona Anatine: it is all outdie of us [13:39] Herman Bergson: slow down corona..:-) [13:39] Corona Anatine: what is outside is unkonw but it is all outside [13:39] Alaya Kumaki: as i see it now it is a form [13:39] Herman Bergson: plz..:-) [13:39] Corona Anatine: sorry [13:39] Corona Anatine: i just do this like breathing [13:39] Corona Anatine: i forget others dont [13:40] Corona Anatine: sorry was why i could not be teaching [13:40] Herman Bergson: ok...most interesting and new issue here is that Dewey sees knowledge more as a process than as a static object like traditional epistemology often does [13:40] Corona Anatine: wel i would go with him on that [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: makes it understandable why he thought of ecudaction [13:40] Herman Bergson: another new element is his concept of truth [13:41] Herman Bergson: oh yes,,Hope.. [13:41] Corona Anatine: truth hmm [13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: I liked the idea that it did not work , well go back or forward, and get a new truth [13:41] Marc Erdheim: is "i know the drill" an expression he uses himself? [13:41] Alarice Beaumont: but we often have discussed it here.. knowledge is a process [13:41] Alarice Beaumont: depending where you live and what chances you get! [13:41] itsme Frederix: I admit (after I did some reading about pragmatism & LW p.e.) I do understand the concepts more - like 30 years ago, it makes sense [13:42] Herman Bergson: No Marc.I did..:-) [13:42] Corona Anatine: where you are etc is immaterial [13:42] Corona Anatine: that just clouds issue [13:42] Corona Anatine: subjectivives the question [13:42] Alaya Kumaki: is drill like brainstorming? [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: corona.. try to concentrate and ask a question.. not comments..:) [13:43] Osrum Sands: I Disagree Corona [13:43] Laila Schuman: can we stay on the subject please [13:43] Gudrun Odriscoll: Corona, where are you, in the immaterial world? computer, internet, still some materia there --- YOU typing [13:43] Corona Anatine: you have to see it as water stream containing sediment particles [13:43] Corona Anatine: the process is the stream [13:43] Herman Bergson: No..what I meant by ' I know the drill' is that Dewey formulated the basics of scientific methodology [13:43] Corona Anatine: the particles the dirt [13:43] Corona Anatine: which are dropped or picked up [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: i think i'll look for the sediment on the bottom of my wine bottle.. [13:44] Corona Anatine: the facts of or theories [13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL [13:44] Herman Bergson: Corona..may I ask you to stop commenting [13:44] itsme Frederix: Still formulation is just language, what counts seems to be succes! [13:44] Haplo Eberhart: a theory is a possible explanation of an event. Not a fact [13:44] hope63 Shepherd: success is relative.. a no-negative result would be appropriate.. [13:45] Herman Bergson: yes Haplo....that was dewey's idea to [13:45] Haplo Eberhart: I think we need to drop the idea of the negetive [13:45] itsme Frederix: its a very technical approach, how it works, well it works - no question why it works (which might be metaphysics) [13:45] Alaya Kumaki: and what about evidence [13:45] Herman Bergson: yes Itsme.... [13:45] Haplo Eberhart: There is no negetive. All work is positive. It is intend or carelessness that causes it to be destructive [13:46] itsme Frederix: Herman I did my readings today [13:46] Herman Bergson: yet I'll get to Dewey's metaphysics in the next lecture [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: ah [13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: Guys, have you got ADD. It is like in primary school. I get lost [13:46] Herman Bergson: but you are right...knowledge is just instrumental to him [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: Dewey is long lived [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: he wrote an enourmous abmout of stuff' [13:46] Ze Novikov: Ze smiles [13:46] itsme Frederix: it is ... well it seems reduction [13:46] Alaya Kumaki: knoledge is mind mecanisme of comparison from this and that [13:47] Gudrun Odriscoll: Alaya, are you coming from an AGI point of view? [13:47] itsme Frederix: what about the big idea's big ideals, just live your life ... [13:48] Herman Bergson: What is AGI Gudrun? [13:48] Alaya Kumaki: yeah wath is agi [13:48] Laila Schuman: re: negetive.... i believe that you cannot, scientifically, prove that something is true... you can only say... we think this is true and then keep looking for that one exception to the rule that says it isn't... going on faith that it does not turn up... [13:48] Gudrun Odriscoll: Artificial general intelligence, knowledge generating [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: I agree with you LaILa [13:48] Alaya Kumaki: ouf it to far form me .... gud [13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: I like that Laila [13:49] itsme Frederix: Lala what is your definition of scientific? [13:49] Laila Schuman: a search with intent [13:49] Alaya Kumaki: i speak about the human mind [13:49] Herman Bergson: But that is in line with Dewey laila... [13:49] itsme Frederix: do not think science comes up witht the "thruth" [13:49] Ze Novikov: lol [13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: and I think dewey would also agree [13:49] Varick Vendetta: that doesn't sound very scientific [13:49] hope63 Shepherd: how about a definition what discussion in a philosophy class should be like? [13:50] Osrum Sands: I like Plato's concept of knowledge which is a combination of truth and belief [13:50] Haplo Eberhart: science is an extention of philosophy. I belive it was a mistake to branch them off [13:50] itsme Frederix: succesfull hope, look around! [13:50] Alaya Kumaki: to look at ourself can show alot of the mind mecanism, without artificial mind to look at [13:50] Annabelle Laminsk: Thank you Mr.Herman for the lecture today but I must be off. [13:50] Varick Vendetta: bye anna [13:50] itsme Frederix: Osrum forget about Plato, its reduced to plain succesfull [13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: bye annabelle [13:50] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye annabelle [13:50] Herman Bergson: Bye annabelle [13:51] Annabelle Laminsk: bai bai ebberyones [13:51] Rodney Handrick: Bye Annabelle [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:51] Ganymede Blackburn: Bye, Annabelle. :) [13:51] Ze Novikov: bye [13:51] Annabelle Laminsk: Bai Lunch! :D [13:51] Haplo Eberhart: Has anyone ever studied any persian philosphers? [13:51] Herman Bergson: you may leave Annabelle..:-) [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: not in this class [13:51] Laila Schuman: smiles... rumi... hafiz? [13:51] hope63 Shepherd: omar khayyam? [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: this is western [13:51] itsme Frederix: @Haplo, science is getting the world right (at your feed), what philosophy tried before, but science seems more succesfull [13:51] Alarice Beaumont: oh no I'm just a starter! [13:51] Alaya Kumaki: idn arabi [13:51] Corona Anatine: could it be said then that more we philosiphize the less we know [13:52] Haplo Eberhart: yep. I wish it was not so neglected in school [13:52] itsme Frederix: Conna yes for me [13:52] Corona Anatine: form this it follows that the less we do so the more we know [13:52] Herman Bergson: No Corona...:-) [13:52] Corona Anatine: therefore [13:52] Varick Vendetta: corona, I'd have to say the more we philosophize, the more we realize we didn't really know what we thought we did [13:53] Herman Bergson: HOLD ON...!!! [13:53] Haplo Eberhart: @itsme science needs philosophy, some of their reasoning etc needs to be questined becuae they are platueing [13:53] Alaya Kumaki: if u make a theorie out of that corona it wil be false the next time...cause nothing is static [13:53] Osrum Sands: that appears to be defeatest Corona [13:53] Gudrun Odriscoll: vomitting out thoughts, a new caustic soup [13:53] itsme Frederix: Varick, by using a tool you know man by talking about it!!!! [13:53] Herman Bergson: Just stop... [13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:53] Corona Anatine: i was attempt to help clarify what seemed to be getting muddels in side issues [13:54] Alaya Kumaki: i mean theories arent natures law.... so its can be taken as [13:54] Osrum Sands: plz [13:54] Herman Bergson: there is not such thing as on the one hand philosophizing and on the other hand knowing.... [13:54] Herman Bergson: if you would understand Dewey correctly you would know that [13:55] Herman Bergson: what you call philosophizing you might regard as the dynamic process the organism is involved in as Dewey sees it... [13:55] Herman Bergson: and knowledge as the result of succesfull testing of hypotheses [13:55] Alaya Kumaki: mind has its own law ... can u into its mecanism...look? [13:56] Varick Vendetta: there is what we believe we know and we can derive that from logic, experimentation, etc, but since our knowledge is not perfect and the mind can be fooled and our senses tricked, we cannot say anything is true one hundred percent. [13:56] Herman Bergson: that is in line with Dewey's ideas varick [13:57] Alaya Kumaki: mind doesnt perceive its failure to perceive the inner law of it self [13:57] Herman Bergson: literally.. [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: very much so [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: I think that is why i like him! [13:57] Jeb Larkham: there are personal truths and personal beliefs and somewhere in the middle is PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE [13:57] itsme Frederix: Herman besides the word "perfect" I guess, which is platonic [13:58] Jeb Larkham: in my opinion [13:58] Herman Bergson: What do you mean by that Jeb? [13:58] Jeb Larkham: well..... [13:58] Herman Bergson: there is also intersubjective knowledge [13:59] Jeb Larkham: the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification [13:59] Jeb Larkham: maybe? [13:59] Herman Bergson: Well... [13:59] Herman Bergson: how knowledge relates to truth we have heard in this lecture.. [14:00] Herman Bergson: and I will give you one issue to think about.. [14:00] Herman Bergson: according to Dewey all knowledge is provisionary [14:00] Herman Bergson: will be replaced by new insights of the learning organism... [14:01] Herman Bergson: that is ok to me, but it leaves me with a few questions.. [14:01] Herman Bergson: one is....has this development of knowledge a direction.....and this questions goes even back to Aristotle... [14:01] Jeb Larkham: well I thing knowledge is about personal beliefs and general consensus [14:02] Herman Bergson: an other question is... [14:02] Herman Bergson: when knowledge is so fluid...so changing......are we facing here an absolute relativism.. [14:02] Jeb Larkham: hmmmm [14:03] Herman Bergson: I have no answers to that at this moment, but these are issues that make me ponder.. [14:03] Alaya Kumaki: knowledge and insights are different... form [14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: all of us [14:03] Jeb Larkham: not so sure all knowledge is fluid (changes) [[14:03] Jeb Larkham: there are facts to consider here [14:03] Herman Bergson: So..I thank you for this discussion and let you go with these two questions....think about it [14:03] Varick Vendetta: Look back at Socrates (or Plato, whichever really had the idea) and look at dialectic. I believe that would help with understanding of its direction [14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: well look at the difference DNA has made to knowledge [14:04] Alaya Kumaki: knowledge is in part memory, but not insights [14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: WE KNEW and not we do not [14:04] Gudrun Odriscoll: thanks a lot herman, lots to think about especially absolute relativism. can't come Sunday, sorry [14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: know what we knew before [14:05] Marc Erdheim: thanks a lot herman. [14:05] Herman Bergson: there still is the blog Gudrun...dont worry..:-) [14:05] Gudrun Odriscoll: see you Tuesday, bye all of you [14:05] itsme Frederix: Herman you are (also) looking for some absolute-ness "has this knowledge direction", bach to Hegel, Plato [14:05] Herman Bergson: Bye Gudrun [14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: Thank you herman for all the questions we have now [14:05] Samuel Okelly: isnt all knowledge a form of belief? (apoligies if this has been covered before my late arrival) [14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [14:05] Ze Novikov: yes ty vm herman [14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: A Samuel [14:05] herman Bergson smiles [14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [14:06] Jeb Larkham: thanks Herman.... nice one ciril [14:06] Herman Bergson: Well Itsme.....the question doesnt imply this yet [14:06] Varick Vendetta: as far as absolute relativism, I would have to say group conciousness prevents it from being absolute, but for each persons heterophenomenology, aside from cultural knowledge, it is highly relative to each persons experience. [14:06] itsme Frederix: ?yet Herman [14:06] Herman Bergson: we have to keep an open mind Itsme..:-) [14:06] Alarice Beaumont: oh sorry.. got a go ... mmhh... see you on tuesday :-) [14:06] Alarice Beaumont: nite everybody [14:07] itsme Frederix: sure, but also a scope & viewpoint [14:07] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Alarice [14:07] Ze Novikov: bye bye everyone [14:07] Herman Bergson: ok Alarice...take care..:-) [14:07] Ze Novikov is Offline [14:07] hope63 Shepherd: just baxck to the chat.. gemma.. what did you mean with dna [14:07] itsme Frederix: Besides from stratup problem - I like this lectures so good [14:08] Herman Bergson: I am glad you do itsme... [14:08] Herman Bergson: I regard it as a compliment..:-) [14:08] itsme Frederix: I know [14:09] Varick Vendetta: so are the questions you had like homework? should I write a paper on it? lol [14:09] Laila Schuman: baiee all [14:09] Herman Bergson: Bye Laila [14:09] itsme Frederix: its a compliment Herman, because of the very small amount of time (and only written words) you are forced to give the keys only - and very succesfull. I got a much brighter line yet

Posted by herman_bergson on 2008-04-25 04:07:20

62b The Second Dewey Lecture

I remember that I once as a philosophy student I wondered about the relation between personality and the kind of philosophical school you prefer. That was a highly unscientific question! You adhere a philosophical school based on good arguments, not because of some personality traits and characteristics. Yet is still believe there is a relation (^_^) and it wouldnt surprise me if this also was the case with John Dewey. He dated his earliest interest in philosophy to a course of physiology that he took during his junior year at the University of Vermont. For that course he had to read T.H. Huxley's text on physiology. For those who are not familiar with this Mister Huxley.....he was famous British biologist and an enthousiastic advocate of Darwin's theory of evolution. Dewey discovered the concept of the organic and developed a sense of interdependence and interrelated unity of all things. He tells us that subconsciously he desired a world and a life that would have the same properties as had the human organism that Huxley describes. From this organic perspective, which emphasized process and change, all distinctions are functional and relative to a developing unified whole. The organic perspective could be used to oppose the static and the fixed and to break down the hard and fast dichotomies and dualism that had plagued philosophy. Here you can think of Believer - agnostic, sensory experience - ideas, mind - matter and so on. Whatever issue Dewey considered, he was convinced that once viewed from the perspective of the organic, old problems would dissolve and new insights would emerge. Dewey's outlook was shaped by his intellectual bias for a philosophy based on change, process and dynamic, organic interaction. In his early years at the University Dewey adhered Hegelianism, which of course refers to Hegel and related to that they also talk about idealism. This may sound a little misleading for those who are not used to technical philosophical terms. At first glance you tend to think it has something to do with IDEALS. Far from that. Idealism, in its philosophical sense, is the view that the mind and spiritual values are fundamental in the world as a whole. Thus, idealism is opposed to naturalism, that is, to the view that the mind and spiritual values have emerged or are reducible to material things and processes. The word 'idealist' was coined by Leibniz in 1702, when he critisized "those who like Epicurus and Hobbes, believe that the soul is material" and held that in his own system "whatever good there is in the hypotheses of Epicurus and of Plato, of the greatest materialists and the greatest idealists, is combined here". So here Leibniz refers to Plato as an 'idealist', in other words a philosopher who upholds an antimaterialist metaphysic, which means, to refresh the memory, an specific answer to the ontological question: What does really exist? And for the 'idealist' (in the philosophical sense) this means that ultimately the ideas, the mind and not matter are fundamental to our being. I hope you don't mind that I elaborate on this at the costs of Dewey, but this dichotomy between IDEALISM and NATURALISM is essential. It is an other way of looking at the dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism. It is one of the main issues of Western philosophy. And as you may learn from the words of Leibniz we already have seen it all in the ideas of the 61 ancestors of Dewey. It started with the Greek and since then never left us. Great names are involved...Descartes, Kant and so in relation to Dewey it was Hegel. What it basically is all about is the concept of experience, the source of our knowledge. Is that the Mind or is it Matter. If it is matter it has to be perceived in sensory experience. This has great philosophical implications. In the first place in relation with the concept of causality: our sensory experiences must be caused by......yes by what? And then comes the big step: all we have and derive our knowledge from is our thoughts, our mind, and what comes in through our senses. Caused? If we say yes, we accept that there exists an external world independent of my experiencing it OR we follow Descartes and doubt everything except the fact that we are thinking. So this is the initial philosophical starting position of Dewey. He moves from an Hegelian view to a new concept of empiricism. Next lecture we'll see what that means. The Discussion [13:33] Gudrun Odriscoll: why are we doing yoga [13:34] Herman Bergson: yoga you mean Gurdrun? [13:34] Gudrun Odriscoll: yes, my keyboard and I am sluggish today [13:34] Stanley Aviatik: not yoghurt then [13:34] Herman Bergson: Some keyboard yoga might help..:-) [13:34] Herman Bergson: yeah was thinking of that Stanley [13:35] Cailleach Shan: Salute the keyboard :) [13:35] Gudrun Odriscoll: or some hypnosis, perhaps [13:35] Herman Bergson: well..to get back to the issue.. [13:35] Stanley Aviatik: with yoga? [13:35] Osrum Sands: Herman do you think the dichotomy is ever resolvable - given the length of time is has been happening [13:35] Cailleach Shan: Herman I have no idea what's going on here. [13:35] Herman Bergson: Dewey is a perfect example of how a philosopher moves from one end of the gamma to the other end [13:36] hope63 Shepherd: delta? [13:36] Herman Bergson: yes Osrum that is a good question... [13:37] Herman Bergson: and it shows immediately that philosophy is also a matter of taking position [13:37] Osrum Sands: it appears that certainty either way is not obtainable [13:37] Herman Bergson: and accept the consequences... [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: what consequences.. [13:37] Herman Bergson: Dewey might have answered that his pragamatism would resolve your question [13:37] Osrum Sands: action etc you mean [13:37] Herman Bergson: yes.. [13:38] arabella Ella: herman would you agree that language carves up the world for us and influences our perception concerning idealism and materialism? [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: pragmatism doesn't resolve questions.. its a way out.. [13:38] Herman Bergson: the basic issue still is how do we justify our knowledge claims [13:38] Osrum Sands: and in the end can we ? [13:39] Osrum Sands: or is more like a matter of 'faith' [13:39] Osrum Sands: or hope [13:39] Mickorod Renard: belief/ faith [13:39] Stanley Aviatik: big difference [13:39] Herman Bergson: Well Arabella, just wait for the linguistic analytics to come...:-) [13:39] Gudrun Odriscoll: Could one say that Dewey is the father of modern learning theories and AGI, I mean you learn via sensoric experience and you influence sensoric expereince with your mind [13:39] Osrum Sands: not faith in the religious sence [13:40] arabella Ella: could we not say that knowledge claims can be justified within different perspectives or viewpoints? [13:40] Samuel Okelly: "how do we justify our knowledge" or where we place our belief herman? [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: whoever strives to know can be redempted (faust) [13:40] Sorcs Nolan: a willingness to ask questions you may not get an answer for, or even just one answer for, may be needed instead of finding absolute answers? [13:41] Herman Bergson: Ok...hold on.... [13:41] Sorcs Nolan: take a position, and be willing to move if needed? :) [13:41] Laila Schuman: idealism...naturalism...realism...etc... are fundamental issues that artists... all the Arts) deal with... and understanding them is to be converscent in interpreting the Arts... which becomes interpreting our culture [13:41] Herman Bergson: One issue that is always around is our apparent need for an absolute... [13:41] hope63 Shepherd: the final question.. [13:42] hope63 Shepherd: for the final answer.. [13:42] Herman Bergson: that is one thing we have to keep in mind when studying philosophical theories... [13:42] Gudrun Odriscoll: 47? [13:42] Osrum Sands: deep thought [13:42] Jeb Larkham: hehe [13:42] Laila Schuman: 47 [13:42] Herman Bergson: I think Dewey tries to evade this need for the absolute naswer [13:43] Cailleach Shan: What was his evasion Herman? [13:43] Osrum Sands: I think he shows his wisdom there [13:43] Mickorod Renard: maybe the absolute answer is only possible by us looking at those things that may seem unbelievable [13:43] Herman Bergson: His evasion was the pragmatic view on theories... [13:44] Cailleach Shan: Ah.. I see what you mean. [13:44] arabella Ella: why do you consider it to be evasion herman? [13:44] Osrum Sands: for it would appear that there is no final answer or big truth once you step away from the God answer [13:44] Herman Bergson: But we'll come to that in more detail later Cailleach [13:44] Osrum Sands: and even there it is still a matter of faith [13:45] Herman Bergson: maybe the wrong word Arabella....Dewey intended to solve old philosophical problem by his approach [13:45] arabella Ella: why should we need an absolute answer in today's day and age when change is so constant [13:45] arabella Ella: ok ty herman [13:45] itsme Frederix: Osrum we are stil waiting for the unmoved mover, the fixed point in universe so we can lift the earth as Archimeds proposed [13:46] Herman Bergson: I dont think that is the question.... [13:46] Herman Bergson: Arabella.. [13:46] Osrum Sands: good point itsme [13:46] Herman Bergson: Philosophically the question is : how do we justify our knowledge claims [13:46] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. you can move the universe according to archimedes.. but can you move minds? [13:46] itsme Frederix: We might ask, why do we need to justify them [13:47] arabella Ella: perhaps we justify our knowledge claims within our own individual perspective and point of view [13:47] Cailleach Shan: How do I know that I know?? [13:47] itsme Frederix: hope I think so [13:47] Herman Bergson: Hold on!!! [13:47] Herman Bergson: Itsme made an important remark... [13:47] Gudrun Odriscoll: knowledge claims are bound to closed circuit systems, different cultures, different opinions. there are some truths, but not one greater truth for everybody [13:48] Herman Bergson: Why should we need to justify our knowledge claims... [13:48] Cailleach Shan: I know there is a butterfly invasion..lol [13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: maybe, given the available evidance, we tentatively resolve in our own minds what is the most reasonable truth [13:48] Osrum Sands: point Aris [13:48] Mickorod Renard: I think it is that individual ability to have different beliefs that allows us to find such great answers [13:48] arabella Ella: i agree Gudrun [13:48] Laila Schuman: one truth/knowledge needs to be based upon another truth/knowledge [13:48] itsme Frederix: well if they work (those knowledge) if we can "rule" the world [13:48] hope63 Shepherd: a scientist speaking .. ari:) [13:48] Herman Bergson: I think that Dewey has a good point here.... [13:49] Cailleach Shan: I want to hear your comment on Itsme's remark Herman. [13:49] Laila Schuman: if one of the basic beliefs/knowledges...is wrong then all from there on is wrong [13:49] Herman Bergson: Knowledge is not a static given but a process that is translated in actions.. [13:49] Herman Bergson: so at the end we have to justify our actions [13:49] Herman Bergson: and knowledge becomes an ethical matter [13:50] Mickorod Renard: if we all accepted the earth was flat then where would we be [13:50] itsme Frederix: or we gather the results of our actions Herman - and thats it - [13:50] Samuel Okelly: though we speak here of “knowledge”, wouldn’t it be more accurate to see it as questioning where we place our “belief”,ie the senses, science, “the good book” etc? [13:50] Herman Bergson: it still becomes an ethical matter Itsme.. [13:50] hope63 Shepherd: no herman.. the individual living as an individual doesn't have to justify his acts.. as an individual in society yes.. [13:51] itsme Frederix: is it for Dewey? [13:51] Herman Bergson: I think it is indeed.....and it shows in his life...he was socially and politically very engaged too [13:52] itsme Frederix: thats a result [13:52] Osrum Sands: he trusted his thinking and then put it into actions [13:52] Herman Bergson: Yes he did, Osrum....especially in educatinal theory [13:52] arabella Ella: and some of his theories on education are still valid today like child centered learning [13:53] Herman Bergson: yes Arabella... [13:53] arabella Ella: focussing on the individual [13:53] Osrum Sands: thats western thinking there [13:53] hope63 Shepherd: focussing omn teh evolutionyry process.. [13:53] Osrum Sands: the individual and not the group / tribe/ nation, etc [13:53] Gudrun Odriscoll: dewey is my man then, this is how we teach arts at uni [13:53] itsme Frederix: So Herman what is ethical about knowledge? [13:54] Gudrun Odriscoll: isnt' the ethical how ones uses knowledge? [13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: can one be ethical without it [13:55] Herman Bergson: Well itsme...that was what the inventors of the A-bomb stuggled with too...with that question [13:55] arabella Ella: Osrum what he meant in education concerned the pitching of teaching at the middle level where most kids lose out [13:55] Osrum Sands: pragmatics works - that which is most effective [13:55] Cailleach Shan: You couldn't understand ethics without knowledge. [13:55] itsme Frederix: Herman not a nice answer for a discussion [13:55] Osrum Sands: Tar Ara [13:55] Herman Bergson: But it is an historic fact [13:56] itsme Frederix: So ..? [13:56] Sorcs Nolan: with knowledge comes power, and what do you do with that power, is where ethics kick in? [13:56] Gudrun Odriscoll: the A bomb thing is a problem, but nuclear power might have its advantages.. it is not black and white [13:56] itsme Frederix: You added an interpretation to it, Herman [13:56] Herman Bergson: Right Sorcs [13:56] hope63 Shepherd: no.. getting yellow these days gudrun lol [13:56] Mickorod Renard: innovation is very restricted when justification is always nessessary [13:57] arabella Ella: i think what Herman means is that knowledge leads to action and action could be considered morally right or wrong, therefore ethics is based on knowledge [13:57] itsme Frederix: Sorc, I would say even without knowledge but having power, the same problem occurs, the same need for ethics [13:57] Gudrun Odriscoll: or green, seems to be the new green clean power solution for some, hope [13:57] Sorcs Nolan: I can gain knowledge of human anatomy, to be either a great doctor, or killer able to use 101+ way of wiping people out, for instance [13:58] hope63 Shepherd: so ants have a higher ethic than humans.. [13:58] Herman Bergson: Right Arabella [13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: the application of knowledge is absolutely linked to ethics [13:58] Herman Bergson: that is what I mean Aristotle [13:58] Gudrun Odriscoll: good thought, arabella [13:58] itsme Frederix: Ari sure, as is all application all acts [13:58] Stanley Aviatik: Ethics only came into existence through our species - so we cannot bring in others [13:58] Osrum Sands: so are we heading towards one end of the dichotomy with this discussion ? [13:58] Sorcs Nolan: good point Aristotle, knowing often presents a decision to be made [13:59] Herman Bergson: Just hold on.... [13:59] hope63 Shepherd: may be we just gave a name to it .stan? [13:59] Herman Bergson: This discussin reminds me of a discussion in the early 70s when I was a student [13:59] Herman Bergson: plz... [13:59] Gudrun Odriscoll: ants are a highly and complex social interaction system, if ethical, I would doubt this [14:00] Herman Bergson: there were two positions....one party claimed that science was science...free of value [14:00] Gudrun Odriscoll: sorry herman [14:00] Cailleach Shan: SHOUT LOUDER HERMAN!!! [14:01] Herman Bergson: the other party claimed that science had social consequences and that the choices WHAT to research were moral choices at the end or political [14:01] hope63 Shepherd: lets give some credit to the ancestors of philosophy.. mostly great mathematicians.. and math is free of value.. [14:01] Herman Bergson: And here I hear the same reactions...is knowledge just knowledge or is knowledge related to moral values [14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: I submit that knowledge is the basis for moral values [14:02] Herman Bergson: I think, when we look at the work of Dewey, that to him knowledge was a social process [14:03] itsme Frederix: Ari do you mean a prereq. [14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: no Itsme the root [14:03] arabella Ella: Hope what you just said is full of unfounded assumptions [14:03] itsme Frederix: so no moral values without knowledge - reminds me to Kant [14:04] Gudrun Odriscoll: Again it is the use of knowledge and the use of science. This is an iffy one. Some scientific development may not have been ethical at times (like against a Catholic belief thing), and very useful some time later [14:04] hope63 Shepherd: ok arabella.. i'll talk with thales.. our first- when i meet him:) [14:04] Laila Schuman: and when it becomes political.... [14:04] itsme Frederix: Gudrum, I just wanted to argue that [14:04] Herman Bergson: yes Gudrun...a good point [14:04] Herman Bergson: and a pragmatic would have no trouble with that at all. [14:05] itsme Frederix: thats why i have problems with pragmatici [14:05] itsme Frederix: its a narrow scope [14:05] Herman Bergson: Does it mean you are searching for an absolute Itsme? [14:05] arabella Ella: hope and if you can please include me in conversation [14:05] itsme Frederix: Herman in my heart yes I guess so [14:06] Ze Novikov: Is the process then the only absolute? [14:06] Herman Bergson: I undertsand... [14:06] Gudrun Odriscoll: what does an absolute bring you, itsme? [14:06] itsme Frederix: I might end with myself or whatever but .. yes [14:06] Ze Novikov: for Dewey? [14:06] hope63 Shepherd: what the hell does ethics have to do with knowledge.. ethics are a socially important factor.. but the knowledge of it is more than relative.. or pargmatic if you want [14:06] Cailleach Shan: A release from fear? [14:06] itsme Frederix: And you Herman, play your card [14:06] Osrum Sands: every best wish with your journey tisme [14:07] Herman Bergson: Well Ze you make me think of that river and Heraclites... [14:07] Ze Novikov: yes [14:07] Herman Bergson: The river is only the flow [14:07] itsme Frederix: Ossum thx, II can live with it [14:08] Laila Schuman: "floating opera" you only see what is going past you... as it approaches.. and as it goes on down the line.... [14:08] itsme Frederix: Osrum I did not say I was convinced about a "absolute" but in some dark corner in my mind yes I admit (I have to) [14:08] Samuel Okelly: so knowledge is theory laden with belief? [14:08] Laila Schuman: re: river is the flow [14:08] itsme Frederix: tao [14:09] Ze Novikov: "floating opera" i like that... [14:09] Mickorod Renard: i like that idea sam [14:09] Herman Bergson: Well......Samuel....knowledge and belief.....a difficult issue, which we will encounter soon too [14:10] Samuel Okelly: i really struggle to seperate the two [14:10] itsme Frederix: well belief in a better world, or belief in that you should use your knowledge ethical [14:10] Herman Bergson: Yes..it is a struggle... [14:11] Herman Bergson: let's not go into thatt discussion now... [14:11] AristotleVon Doobie: belief in yourself sounds more like it [14:11] Herman Bergson: For now I would say, that when you reread our dicussion in the blog you will find a lot to think about [14:12] Herman Bergson: I want to thank you for this really good discussion... [14:12] Gudrun Odriscoll: Yes this is an excellent discussion and a wonderful lecture today [14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman [14:12] Stanley Aviatik: thank you Herman [14:12] Herman Bergson: thank you Gudrun [14:12] Annabelle Laminsk: Thank you Herman. :D [14:12] Mickorod Renard: i missed the first bit ,,,an emergency,,,but will read the blog Herman thanks [14:12] Cailleach Shan: Ta Herman. Looking forward to more on knowledge and ethics. [14:12] Gudrun Odriscoll: thanks you Herman [14:13] Sorcs Nolan: thanks to all, I feel more informed on Dewey, and love philosophical discussions! :) [14:13] Herman Bergson: It wont leave us anymore Cailleach.... [14:13] Samuel Okelly: thanks again herman :)

Posted by herman_bergson on 2008-04-21 03:54:06