Sir, the horns of your dilemma are bit crooked. How can a magic-free worldview begets relativism?
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Reza you're gonna hate me for this but I see it as falling out of Carnap and Hempel lol - I think the kind of social coordination inquiry (be it descriptive or normative) seeks to achieve will admit of many equally good conventional choices that generate adequate results.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @lastpositivist
Yes, but that doesn't amount to magic or magic-free. I think you are using the word magic in a very generous way like as it it was a proto form of experimental science a la Lynn Thorndike. Otherwise, magic as it is commonly understood is actually not a good conventional choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @lastpositivist
He means magic in the William James sense -- a sassy pejorative for realist metaphysics
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @peligrietzer @lastpositivist
Realist metaphysics? Where is Carnap now?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @lastpositivist
OMG Reza, Liam is saying that 'magic' (i.e. realist metaphysics) is bad and relativism (i.e. carnap/hempel style conventionalism) is the only alternative, and therefore good
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @peligrietzer @lastpositivist
But the whole thing is that people like Carnap and Goodman are actually not relativists in any solid sense. They are anti-foundationalist and pro-methodological diversification. That has nothing to do with relativism in the way we use the term nowadays.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @lastpositivist
Doesn't the principle of tolerance imply some kind of relativism about ontology?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peligrietzer @lastpositivist
No, it doesn't necessarily. The principle of tolerance is about the logical method. Sure, if you in Kantian way think that the logical method essentially implies ontological commitments, then yes. But otherwise, no.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This reminds me about the conversation between Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and Adolf Grünbaum who were both strictly anti-relativist. Nevertheless, the both defended methodological diversification in different avenues.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Yet, Grünbaum pointed out this fact to Bar-Hillel that you just can't a liberal attitude to methodological plurality because isn't it the case that every method is a key to unlock a specific door?
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @peligrietzer
I do agree that methodological pluralism does not by itself entail relativism, but in this case I think both pluralism and relativism are called for. This because among the things the principle of tolerance applies to are concepts by means of which I make evaluations.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.