RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Steve Fuller vs., William Dembski< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,23:44   

After watching him on NOVA I've concluded if William Dembski is the Paris Hilton of Design Theory, Steve Fuller is the Anna Nicole Smith of Design Boobery.

Good god where did he attend college?  Has he ever attended a college level biology class?  Or just logic 101?  

I'm serious and not a scientist nor a science philosopher and I can see that man is really dumb, or he assumes I am.  Or he's marginally bright, knows he's full of shit, and he's just enjoying the celebrity of being idolized by a sizeable group of very dumb people. I wonder how intellectually fulfilling it is to be Lord of the Tards.  Demsbki seems to enjoy it.

I found Fullers analogies for 5 year olds and other explanations/justifications insulting.  I suspect even most 5 year olds would feel similarly.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,02:39   

I've encountered Prof Fuller a few times and can confirm at least one aspect of your comments: he does think everyone else is dumb (or appears to). I'd have to say this is common professorial behaviour especially amongst certain humanities profs for some reason (Fuller is a Sociology Prof).

He, however, is not stupid and dismissing him (or Dembski et al) as such is an error. ID Creationists have successfully maintained and sustained a fake scientific controversy and a very real political controversy in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence disproving their claims, and against the consensus of the entire scientific community (which sadly is comparatively unmotivated). This strategy arose from the ashes of Edwards vs Aguillard and has at least been effective in prolonging well funded and politically powerful antievolution in the USA, and to a degree exporting it abroad.

Fuller advocates something (or at least has done when I've talked to him, and then has subsequently denied its relevance/denied it outright when I've spoken to him about it again) called "social epistemology" which I think has shifting meanings depending on to whom and when he uses it. It seems to be a strong relativist claim that societies in part determine what is real, but don't quote me, it's been a while since I've read his books soI could be wrong about that, I'm certainly no expert sociologist. It seems to me at least that he is one of a prominent "sect" of postmodernists in the academic humanities (I've said this before: who'd have thought that the academic, postmodernist left and the anti-intellectual, religious right were such great bedfellows).

The interesting thing is, smarmy though he undoubtedly can be, he's a decent enough bloke and quite good to have a beer with. Still, he's a cheeky so and so when it comes to science and especially evolution and his arguments are (as you note) TERRIBLE. I'll have to wait until I see the programme to dissect the one's he's currently espousing.

Oh well.

Louis

EDITTED TO ADD: P.S. Here is a good summary of old Fuller, in my experience he hops around a bit so until I see the programme I can't say that this is relevant to new Fuller. My guess, having spoken to him and read his output, is that this will not be far from the mark.

--------------
Bye.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,10:33   

Interesting points.  I watched the show with my wife who is not ID or creationism savvy (she has more worthwhile interests) and without any coaching from me she remarked on what an idiot Fuller was,  "That guy is really dumb" was her initial assessment.  Then she went on to refute every single point he made.  She did so gleefully.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,11:27   

Have no fear, Fuller is slimier than a tapeworm's codpiece (see: things that major proponents of IDC all have in common) and can shill his relativist dishonesties all day long, just don't pretend the guy is an illiterate whackjob with a room temperature IQ. He's a literate whackjob with a normal IQ (AFAIK)!

I don't underestimate these clowns, they successfully play on people's ignorance and apathy towards correcting that ignorance. That's a powerful tool in the wrong hands.

EDITTED TO ADD: Oh and you're right about the ego massage thing. The Fullers of this world love being fawned upon and they ain't too choosy about the fawners.
Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,16:34   

I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,18:52   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,14:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Amen.

I thought that Fuller would be a great anti-IDC witness just by encouraging him to talk about what HE thought about IDC.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,19:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2007,18:52)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,14:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Amen.

I thought that Fuller would be a great anti-IDC witness just by encouraging him to talk about what HE thought about IDC.

Point worth noting: in Fuller's new book, Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, citations to references of his own work take up a full page of the bibliography minus one cite.  

In the index,

Pages citing Dembski: 10
Pages citing Behe: 7
Pages citing Auguste Comte: 18
Pages citing Marx: 25

You see the problem here.  But the index is crap anyway, riddled with errors. It doesn't begin to cover the extent of his gratuitous name-dropping philosophical pointillism.

He spends more time discussing the rise of the British Nationalist Party than he does discussing the details of ID, about which he appears to know almost nothing.

Edited for clarity

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,01:48   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,22:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Well as you know there are relativist postmodernist science studies types and there are relativist postmodernist science studies types. ;-)

I agree Fuller et al give you a really bad name because there's a lot of sensible work done (and to be done) in science studies, and Stevie ain't doin' it! And Postmodernism and Relativism are not "bad" per se but their extremes are indefensibly anti-......well they aren't anti-intellectual, they aren't precisely anti-Enlightenment (although they are to a large degree IMO), they're not precisely anti-knowledge either. Hmmm. I'll stick to....anti-reason.

What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,02:54   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Fucking brilliant. One of the best things anyone's ever done to demonstrate the sheer retardedness of humanity. That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.

Talk about having it coming.

BTW, Have you seen this one?
link

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,03:12   

I love postmodernism, and Sokal.

Sokal's hoax was probably the most postmodern thing that could happen to a postmodern journal. It's a severe discredit that the Social Text editors didn't all immediately bubble with joy at how cool and thought-provoking it was.

There's a fundamental difference between interesting postmodernism, in which people using too-big words and French to try to sort out complicated things, and dogmatic academia showing off how postmodern it can be. When the antiestablishment, question-everything people start hating being seriously questioned you have problems.

Then again, there seems to be a narrow minority who agree there's a difference, either among postmodernists or otherwise.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,03:39   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,08:54)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Fucking brilliant. One of the best things anyone's ever done to demonstrate the sheer retardedness of humanity. That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.

Talk about having it coming.

BTW, Have you seen this one?
link

I am also a fan of the Sokal hoax. I like seeing bunkum and bunkum promoters exposed. However, I certainly don't think that the clowns and clowning exposed by that excellent hoax are representative of all of the humanities, or even just all of pomo etc. There are some good ideas contained within and some decent academics. Sadly, as the Sokal hoax exposed, there are also a lot of muppets and associated muppetry.

Quis custodet ipsos custodes?

Which of course is something to do with custard.

Louis

P.S. Yes I have seen that pomo generator, or at least one much like it. It is hilarious. Satirising/parodying the occasional outgrowths of human obscurantism and pomposity is a great business! Hurrah and yoiks! Three cheers for Alan Sokal.

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,04:55   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,03:39)
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,08:54)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Fucking brilliant. One of the best things anyone's ever done to demonstrate the sheer retardedness of humanity. That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.

Talk about having it coming.

BTW, Have you seen this one?
link

I am also a fan of the Sokal hoax. I like seeing bunkum and bunkum promoters exposed. However, I certainly don't think that the clowns and clowning exposed by that excellent hoax are representative of all of the humanities, or even just all of pomo etc. There are some good ideas contained within and some decent academics. Sadly, as the Sokal hoax exposed, there are also a lot of muppets and associated muppetry.

Quis custodet ipsos custodes?

Which of course is something to do with custard.

Louis

P.S. Yes I have seen that pomo generator, or at least one much like it. It is hilarious. Satirising/parodying the occasional outgrowths of human obscurantism and pomposity is a great business! Hurrah and yoiks! Three cheers for Alan Sokal.

Are you kidding? they are representative of all of humanity let alone the humanities. Of course there are good ideas, but that doesn't stop us from being gullible, pompous, egocentric idiots to a man (or woman).

I always thought statler and waldorf watched the watchers or guarded the guards or had custody of the custodians or ate custard.

Anyway, don't misunderstand, I'm all for thinking, philosophy, science, whatever. I enjoy it, but as Horace Walpole one wrote in a letter to the Queen of Upper Austria:
"The world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel."

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4223
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,06:16   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,03:54)
That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.

That was the series of experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early '60s demonstrating conformity to authority. The shocks were simulated, although the conformity was not.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,07:02   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,10:55)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,03:39)
 
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2007,08:54)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Fucking brilliant. One of the best things anyone's ever done to demonstrate the sheer retardedness of humanity. That and the real test where they ask you to shock the other guy when he gets wrong answers.

Talk about having it coming.

BTW, Have you seen this one?
link

I am also a fan of the Sokal hoax. I like seeing bunkum and bunkum promoters exposed. However, I certainly don't think that the clowns and clowning exposed by that excellent hoax are representative of all of the humanities, or even just all of pomo etc. There are some good ideas contained within and some decent academics. Sadly, as the Sokal hoax exposed, there are also a lot of muppets and associated muppetry.

Quis custodet ipsos custodes?

Which of course is something to do with custard.

Louis

P.S. Yes I have seen that pomo generator, or at least one much like it. It is hilarious. Satirising/parodying the occasional outgrowths of human obscurantism and pomposity is a great business! Hurrah and yoiks! Three cheers for Alan Sokal.

Are you kidding? they are representative of all of humanity let alone the humanities. Of course there are good ideas, but that doesn't stop us from being gullible, pompous, egocentric idiots to a man (or woman).

I always thought statler and waldorf watched the watchers or guarded the guards or had custody of the custodians or ate custard.

Anyway, don't misunderstand, I'm all for thinking, philosophy, science, whatever. I enjoy it, but as Horace Walpole one wrote in a letter to the Queen of Upper Austria:
"The world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel."

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. My bad.

I'm not defending the nuttier pomo elements (obviously) and I'm REALLY not denying the fact that, despite wits and decent ideas, Homo sapiens is more often better described as Homo ludens.

What I was implying was that:

a) Some people tend to write off aspects of good humanities and sensible humanities academics because of the lunatic or foolish fringe (or even foolish majority in some cases). I think that this is a bad idea. I didn't think you were doing this but I wanted to pre-empt a generalised humanities/pomo bashing evolving from a very justified bashing of Fuller and the ludicrous/lunatic element.

b) A theme I've found running through some "science studies" works that I find unbelievably arrogant is that they are the guards who guard the scientists (the guardians of truth perhaps). These guys have in some cases set themselves up in the (very useful) role of Caesar's slave. The see themselves as (self righteously) reminding scientists that they are merely human. A noble cause, and one I agree with, but it misses the point. Scarily enough science itself is a sufficient Caesar's slave to scientists, as anyone who's done any research knows. We are humbled by nature on such a regular basis that any additional humbling is gilding an already very humble lilly! Obviously there are instances and individuals where this is not true, these are often famous exceptions, and the loons concerned are justifyably stomped on heavily.

I think this role is vainglorious and stems from the same irrational base that (for example) certain aspects of religious persecution complexes arise, or to use a specific example, the prejudicial appeal to the "wisdom of the common man" (i.e. that in matters decided by evidence: the fallacy that Jack's as good as his master). It's another iteration of "I don't like what the evidence says, therefore the evidence is wrong because I don't like it". Many pomo/relativist screeds of the ludicrous sort have a Lefter-than-thou sanctimony (Fuller is an example of this btw) redolent of more religious ideologies. Evidence occasionally conflicts with these ideologies and WHAP we see denailsists, dogmatism, and the standard anti-Enlightenment, anti-science silliness we see in everything from homeopathy to creationism. The pomo/relativist extremes are just yet another finger on the very polydactyl hand of anti-reason.

My Latin quip was a reminder to these self-appointed pomo guards that they in turn need guarding. As Annyday points out above, the Social Text people should have revelled in the pomoposity pricking, Imperial nudity exposing brilliance of the Sokal hoax. The fact that they didn't is telling.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,07:21   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,22:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Well as you know there are relativist postmodernist science studies types and there are relativist postmodernist science studies types. ;-)

I agree Fuller et al give you a really bad name because there's a lot of sensible work done (and to be done) in science studies, and Stevie ain't doin' it! And Postmodernism and Relativism are not "bad" per se but their extremes are indefensibly anti-......well they aren't anti-intellectual, they aren't precisely anti-Enlightenment (although they are to a large degree IMO), they're not precisely anti-knowledge either. Hmmm. I'll stick to....anti-reason.

What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Louis,

I thought the Sokal hoax was a great event.  I actually went out and bought a copy of the Social Text issue as a collector's item.  I'm not sure it made the right impression on, say, Gross and Leavitt -- or for that matter Sokal!  (Stanley Aronowitz sure is a fool, though.)   Most hoaxes have more complicated lessons down the road than their creators intended.  (Cf. Ern Malley.)

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,09:23   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 15 2007,13:21)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,22:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Well as you know there are relativist postmodernist science studies types and there are relativist postmodernist science studies types. ;-)

I agree Fuller et al give you a really bad name because there's a lot of sensible work done (and to be done) in science studies, and Stevie ain't doin' it! And Postmodernism and Relativism are not "bad" per se but their extremes are indefensibly anti-......well they aren't anti-intellectual, they aren't precisely anti-Enlightenment (although they are to a large degree IMO), they're not precisely anti-knowledge either. Hmmm. I'll stick to....anti-reason.

What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Louis,

I thought the Sokal hoax was a great event.  I actually went out and bought a copy of the Social Text issue as a collector's item.  I'm not sure it made the right impression on, say, Gross and Leavitt -- or for that matter Sokal!  (Stanley Aronowitz sure is a fool, though.)   Most hoaxes have more complicated lessons down the road than their creators intended.  (Cf. Ern Malley.)

Oh I agree! Sokal and Bricmont have had fallout from their hoax they didn't expect. I think the whole affair was delightfully revealling in more ways than one.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,18:07   

Stupid, stupid Fuller on Nova:

 
Quote
[intelligent design is] in fact opening the path of inquiry to new ways of thinking.


Creationism is nothing new, Steve.  And it was and always will be a science stopper.  True, it's pay dirt for losers though.

 
Quote
One way to get into the concept of Intelligent Design is by imagining what it would be like to run across something like this on the beach: "John Loves Mary." I mean, this is the sort of design that's very unlikely just to have assembled itself just from sand blowing randomly over even very long period of time. Rather, it shows a sign of some sort of intelligence that's behind it.


Steve, Steve, Steve.  It is the BIBLE that says man came from sand, not biology.  Ever heard of biology, Steve?  Science?  Ever read anything about evolution?  It's a fascinating subject, you'd probably enjoy learning about it.

 
Quote
The idea is that there are certain— aspects of life— perhaps organisms or organs or even cells that in a sense— could only have— come about as a whole. In other words, it was very unlikely they could have come about through just a kind of— contingent combination of parts over— even millions or billions of years. But, rather in a sense has to be created whole cloth, all together, at once. Because, everything fits together so well. That to remove one part, the thing wouldn't function.


Go ahead and say it, Steve, be bold!  It looks so complicated, my mind is so simple, therefore god musta done it!  There now, don't you feel better, Steve?

 
Quote
At the very beginning of genetics— the idea of there being a hereditary factor that somehow was responsible for the traits that we have, but one couldn't quite identify what the factor was. That was also initially regarded as supernatural as well. So, it's not that supernaturalism hasn't been part of science. In fact, it has been. And it's often led to very fruitful results. And it seems the evolutionists want to in a way— ignore or marginalize that very important part of the history.


Um, whatever Steve.  People used to think the world was flat, that doesn't make ID any more plausible or any less stupid now does it?  Steve have you ever considered going to college and getting an education?  

Steve Fuller, when I listen to you I can't help but wonder was Ken Hovind your science tutor?

And you're welcome.  This insight is on me, you owe me nothing.  

Cheers!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,14:26   

"philosophical pointillism"

That is a wonderful image.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,18:30   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 16 2007,14:26)
"philosophical pointillism"

That is a wonderful image.

Thanks.  I may use it in the review.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
sysdt



Posts: 1
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2007,09:47   

Hermagoras, you seem to read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe. Rather than studying the index (were you looking for your own name?), why don't you do something innovative, like read the text in the order it is published. You don't exactly establish yourself as a credible witness if the most interesting thing you can say is how often Fuller cites himself.

By the way, what evidence do you have that Fuller actually is a postmodern relativist? Does he ever say this himself?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2007,10:41   

Well, thats the interesting thing.  To us non-experts, he looks like a post modern lunatic.  To the supposed experts, well, I've yet to read anything by them on him.

It would be interesting if you would stay a while and argue your case for whatever label you feel is best attached to Fuller.  

And speaking as someone who's read a bit of Marx, I have trouble working out what he has to do with Fullers fantasies about evolution and ID.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,09:02   

Quote (sysdt @ Nov. 19 2007,15:47)
Hermagoras, you seem to read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe. Rather than studying the index (were you looking for your own name?), why don't you do something innovative, like read the text in the order it is published. You don't exactly establish yourself as a credible witness if the most interesting thing you can say is how often Fuller cites himself.

By the way, what evidence do you have that Fuller actually is a postmodern relativist? Does he ever say this himself?

This is an interesting comment for one reason (there are lots of reasons it's a whiny load of old toss, but I digress): it highlights one aspect of Fuller's denialism.

IIRC Fuller explicitly denies being a postmodern relativist, and whilst I am happy to acknowledge my own innocence and ignorance of much of Fuller's field of "expertise" (and I use that term advisedly) the bits I have read about and the things of his I have read would indicate certain things consistent with such a decription.

In other words, given standard caveats, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

Fuller quacks.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,09:49   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 20 2007,09:02)
Fuller quacks.

I don't mind ducks quacking.  I havn't heard him speak, but what I have read of his writings make me think there has to be a better description than quacking.  

(Isn't it funny how we get a drive by defense of Fuller with no information or argument in it?)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,10:06   

Quote (guthrie @ Nov. 20 2007,15:49)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 20 2007,09:02)
Fuller quacks.

I don't mind ducks quacking.  I havn't heard him speak, but what I have read of his writings make me think there has to be a better description than quacking.  

(Isn't it funny how we get a drive by defense of Fuller with no information or argument in it?)

I don't mean that Fuller literally quacks, or is a quack! I meant that despite denial of postmodernist/relativist leanings he espouses ideas that are consonent with those descriptors AFAICT (and it ain't only me who thinks this btw).

The duck analogy is intended to indicate that perhaps Fuller's claims that he is not a postmodernist/relatvist are not entirely the best method of distinguishing whether or not he is a postmodernist/relatvist given that the ideas he espouses ARE considered to be of that type. He can tell us he isn't a postmodernist/relatvist all he like, if he behaves like one, advances postmodernist/relatvist ideas like one, defends various premises like one, then dammit his denials are pretty irrelevant. Any squidlike tendancy to hide bheind a cliud of ink is not significant. And this does not mean that Fuller is a squid. ;-)

After all, people have been know to be in denial, even dare I say it to advance untruths, before. I have it on at least relatively good authority that a large number of people in prison are "innocent", despite evidence demonstrating their guilt and their convictions being robust. Perhaps in Fuller's case his cries of "I am not a postmodernist/relatvist" are of a similar vein. If you get my drift.

And yes, the drive by, content free defense of Fuller is "funny".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5354
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,10:11   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 20 2007,10:02)
   
Quote (sysdt @ Nov. 19 2007,15:47)
Hermagoras, you seem to read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe. Rather than studying the index (were you looking for your own name?), why don't you do something innovative, like read the text in the order it is published. You don't exactly establish yourself as a credible witness if the most interesting thing you can say is how often Fuller cites himself.

By the way, what evidence do you have that Fuller actually is a postmodern relativist? Does he ever say this himself?

This is an interesting comment for one reason (there are lots of reasons it's a whiny load of old toss, but I digress): it highlights one aspect of Fuller's denialism.

IIRC Fuller explicitly denies being a postmodern relativist, and whilst I am happy to acknowledge my own innocence and ignorance of much of Fuller's field of "expertise" (and I use that term advisedly) the bits I have read about and the things of his I have read would indicate certain things consistent with such a decription.

In other words, given standard caveats, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

Fuller quacks.

Louis


Postmodern quack?



--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,10:14   

Applause!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,10:31   

Quote (sysdt @ Nov. 19 2007,09:47)
Hermagoras, you seem to read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe. Rather than studying the index (were you looking for your own name?), why don't you do something innovative, like read the text in the order it is published. You don't exactly establish yourself as a credible witness if the most interesting thing you can say is how often Fuller cites himself.

By the way, what evidence do you have that Fuller actually is a postmodern relativist? Does he ever say this himself?

Actually, I did read the book.  It's a bizarre book for sure: the index is just a quick way of noting its odd priorities.  

Come to think of it, the idea that I "read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe" is not something I'd take issue with.  

As for the specific charge, I was speaking kind of glibly; I don't actually think Fuller is a postmodern relativist.  He seems to be sui generis.  I do think people who read science studies carelessly sometimes make the mistake of conflating Fuller's idiosyncratic perspective with science studies in general.  I'm pretty sure that in that respect, at least, Fuller and I would agree (he doesn't want to be confused with anybody else).

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5354
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,11:21   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 20 2007,11:14)
Applause!

Louis

Thank you sir.

I spent minutes years at the Wikipedia article Steven Fuller School of Postmodern Art and Culture, where I earned my B.S. Degree Masters of Art Education by reading the first paragraph intensive study of Marketing Deception in a World Full of Morons Postmodernism and Its Influence on the Artistic Culture.

I shall now rename the piece Fulleruvit, blow it up to absurdly monstrous more appropriate proportions, and travel the globe bilking millions of sheep who have less intelligence than taste sharing my artistic genius with the world.

The world has your encouragement to blame thank.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2007,14:01   

Quote
I always thought statler and waldorf watched the watchers or guarded the guards or had custody of the custodians or ate custard.

I always thought Custard was statler and waldorf's cat.



"They won't understand you" said Custard smirking. "Try talking about the Clangers instead".

The birds tittered.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,05:19   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 15 2007,07:21)
 I thought the Sokal hoax was a great event.  I actually went out and bought a copy of the Social Text issue as a collector's item.

So did I.  I'll bet it was, by far, their best-selling issue ever.

Amusingly, Ross later published an "expanded edition" of that issue -- and had the balls to leave out the Sokal paper!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
  32 replies since Nov. 13 2007,23:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]