Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's your opinion on Foucault's conception of power?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

    Yes, standard definition. And yes, it's power that Foucault and other postmodernists are all about.

    An understanding of natural physical law ultimately leads to better technology and the means of exerting power over others who do not have that understanding. Knowledge is power. The reality is that natural law trumps any bullshit that people may come up with - whether it is mysticism or other forms of self-deception. Prayers uttered thousands of km away urging someone to die don't kill. Bullets and other products of technology can and do - brought to the vicinity by other technology such as ships and aircraft. Now, this conflicts with the postmodernist notion that "all knowledge is equally valid". No, some knowledge is more equal than others - modern medicine stops AIDS from killing people whereas shamans muttering bullshit does nothing at all. It's literally about the power of life and death.

    Postmodernism is very anti modernist and science and technology are an integral part of "the modern". As to why - it all comes down to that "power" you were referring to.

    Ultimately, postmodernists are after their own slice of power which they wish to project.. they don't have the intellect to understand the basics of science and technology beyond a certain superficial level and can't participate "where the power really is" - in science and technology. Therefore, they try to influence or outright control people by one of the oldest weapons known to humanity - lying and deception. So, postmodernism comes into direct conflict with science and tries to subvert it with bullshit woo woo talk in order for its practitioners to get some sort of power and influence over people.

    Conclusion: you are wrong. Modern science is inextricably linked to postmodernism in that modern science is completely counter to postmodernism because there are absolute truths which stem from natural physical law which in turn can be used to develop technology which ultimately can be applied for obtaining power - good and evil. This is the core reason why postmodernism wants to destroy science.

    Therefore, it is completely valid to talk about science with regards to postmodernism in order to demonstrate what a load of deceptive shit postmodernism is.

    Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

    Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
    ?
    In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post


      Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

      Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
      ?
      In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
      So, do jump from a multi storey building and prove that science is wrong while postmodernist bullshit is right Also, you asked others to try to stay outside when it freezes - logic and common sense tells us it would be impossible and I have no idea why you suggested those who believe in logic and science to do so, you'd rather also try it yourself as you deny the absolute truth of science and logic. What kind of bullshit is that? Someone has written 'postmodernist bullshit' and it was like a red cloth to you to start defending all post modernist BS parroting all possible postmodernist websites where you possibly look for all the answers in a vague, postmodern language patterns...What you believe in is actually anti-science. We cannot say science is unpredictable and that its truths easily change. True knowledge about reality is possible and it exists. Rejecing objectivity is ridiculous. Science is reliable, if one claims otherwise, one is free to prove it wrong by their own examples. By jumping down the building, by refusing oxygen, by refusing medication when necessary, prove that 2 and 2 is five and that humans can fly and that evolution is but a fairy tale and others will start believing in postmodernist BS rather than science.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
        Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

        Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
        ?
        In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
        Newtons gravitational law is such a theory which got "refuted" later. Newton got it wrong because of his "worldview" - to use your wording.
        However, Newtons gravitational law is still valid and jumping from buildings inevitably let you feel Newtons power with exactly GxM1M2/r2. Scientific laws which describe nature don't run out of validity ever.

        An example for your claim with relevance in reality would be very helpful. I don't think there is any.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts.
          And woo woo verbal masturbaters can take any sentence by a scientist or technologist pull it completely out of context and create any meaning that they want.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.
          Bullshit. If the evidence does not stack up against the "worldview assumptions of the scientist", then the scientist's "worldview assumptions" are bullshit and have to change. Science is ultimately very brutal towards internalised lying and deception. Internal pretence doesn't last long under the weight of evidence because reality is the ultimate arbitrator.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong.
          When the evidence is checked and demonstrated to be repeatable and correct, the old theory gets consigned to the "History of Science".

          The sentence you should have written is this:

          Religious and spiritual theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
          Complete bullshit. When evidence becomes available that contradicts an existing theory, then the old theory becomes unsustainable.

          Your statement needed a little correction. I've done it for you to make it much more factually correct:
          ?
          Rather, older religions and spiritual beliefs tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger people who fall for spiritual bullshit who, in turn, promote their faiths/cults/religions over the older ones. A current spiritual belief or religion or cult is just that: a current pile of woo woo bullshit, which will be replaced by another current pile of crap in the future. For that reason, the believer cannot tell us what is real, only what religious believers and other cult followers believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone excluding scientists, but including the blind believer, is locked into his or her particular culture and language because they are not allowed to question what is in their system of belief, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth,
          "Promoted as truth" based on the available evidence. This "truth" is very much conditional to the evidence that it is based on.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          and then eventually discarded.
          No, old theories are not "merely discarded". They tend to be absorbed into new theories because the correct evidence that the older theory must be based upon has to also be explained by the new theory.

          Take for example Newtonian mechanics and gravitation theory verses special and general relativity. When speeds of objects are compatible to the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics becomes inaccurate.. as does Newtonian gravitation for very big masses. Special and general relativity correctly predict what is observed in these extreme physical conditions.

          Now, if special and general relativity are theories which supersede the respective Newtonian ones, then they must also explain the data and other evidence that sustained Newtonian ones. When you take the equations of special and general relativity and respectively apply them to low velocity and low mass cases, they reduce to the same equations we see for the Newtonian ones.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda.
          Even if you have an agenda, then to lie means that you will be caught out at some point because in science when science is done properly, things are checked - even those which you think are correct.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked.
          That's the nature of science. When new and verifiable evidence becomes available which contradicts old theories, then the theory must change.

          This is in contrast with woo woo / spiritual and other religious and religious-like bullshit which usually present themselves as unquestionable truth.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized.
          Irrelevant. In any case, if someone is using a scientific theory in order to advance in some manner politically, then the thing had better be evidence-based and work. If the scientific theory that a scientist is playing politics with is total bullshit, then it is an easy matter to ruin this scientist - simply by showing that the theory is bullshit.

          Therefore, even a politicised scientist has to get the science right.

          Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
          Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
          ummmm no... "preconceived" and "unproven" ideas get filtered through evidence. It is ultimately the data that determines whether a theory is good and workable or just bullshit.

          This is in strict contrast to the shit that goes on with religions, cults, "faiths", "spiritual movements" and other pseudo-intellectual bullshit such as postmodernism. These systems are ultimately built upon internalised lying and deception which followers are not allowed to question and thereby reveal to be such.

          BACK TO TOPIC:

          Your response to my previous post is exactly the same bullshit I spoke about regarding postmodernists in my previous post,

          You:
          • didn't actually respond to what I had written in my previous post, only babbled on about some unconnected stuff
          • in any case what you had responded with was complete and utter bullshit lacking even a minor understanding about how science works.
          You were applying exactly the tactics I'd spoken about in my previous post and most likely for the same reasons.

          Just as I had said, postmodernists lie and deceive ultimately for power - because they don't understand science and are unable to harness it in terms of influencing people. They bluff and bullshit in order for people to think that they are "intellectual" and hence are worthy of being listened to and followed.

          The typical tactic of postmodernists is to use language in a manner that it is completely incomprehensible. That is how they hide the fact that they are lying, deceiving and ultimately full of shit. Their crap becomes inaccessible and people fall for it by default because they are not able to easily question it.

          All of this sounds a lot like you based on the evidence of your previous posts...
          Last edited by aussieinbg; 10-15-2017, 08:06 AM. Reason: formatting

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Suna123 View Post
            An example for your claim with relevance in reality would be very helpful. I don't think there is any.
            Of course the poster you had responded to has no evidence.

            The typical postmodernist tactic is to present as little evidence as possible, By presenting evidence of any sort, then this gives someone something to check to determine the validity or otherwise of what the postmodernist has written.

            Naturally, this is counter to what the postmodernist wants to achieve - to bluff and bullshit their way past people.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

              And woo woo verbal masturbaters can take any sentence by a scientist or technologist pull it completely out of context and create any meaning that they want.



              Bullshit. If the evidence does not stack up against the "worldview assumptions of the scientist", then the scientist's "worldview assumptions" are bullshit and have to change. Science is ultimately very brutal towards internalised lying and deception. Internal pretence doesn't last long under the weight of evidence because reality is the ultimate arbitrator.



              When the evidence is checked and demonstrated to be repeatable and correct, the old theory gets consigned to the "History of Science".

              The sentence you should have written is this:

              Religious and spiritual theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong.



              Complete bullshit. When evidence becomes available that contradicts an existing theory, then the old theory becomes unsustainable.

              Your statement needed a little correction. I've done it for you to make it much more factually correct:
              ?
              Rather, older religions and spiritual beliefs tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger people who fall for spiritual bullshit who, in turn, promote their faiths/cults/religions over the older ones. A current spiritual belief or religion or cult is just that: a current pile of woo woo bullshit, which will be replaced by another current pile of crap in the future. For that reason, the believer cannot tell us what is real, only what religious believers and other cult followers believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone excluding scientists, but including the blind believer, is locked into his or her particular culture and language because they are not allowed to question what is in their system of belief, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.



              "Promoted as truth" based on the available evidence. This "truth" is very much conditional to the evidence that it is based on.



              No, old theories are not "merely discarded". They tend to be absorbed into new theories because the correct evidence that the older theory must be based upon has to also be explained by the new theory.

              Take for example Newtonian mechanics and gravitation theory verses special and general relativity. When speeds of objects are compatible to the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics becomes inaccurate.. as does Newtonian gravitation for very big masses. Special and general relativity correctly predict what is observed in these extreme physical conditions.

              Now, if special and general relativity are theories which supersede the respective Newtonian ones, then they must also explain the data and other evidence that sustained Newtonian ones. When you take the equations of special and general relativity and respectively apply them to low velocity and low mass cases, they reduce to the same equations we see for the Newtonian ones.



              Even if you have an agenda, then to lie means that you will be caught out at some point because in science when science is done properly, things are checked - even those which you think are correct.



              That's the nature of science. When new and verifiable evidence becomes available which contradicts old theories, then the theory must change.

              This is in contrast with woo woo / spiritual and other religious and religious-like bullshit which usually present themselves as unquestionable truth.



              Irrelevant. In any case, if someone is using a scientific theory in order to advance in some manner politically, then the thing had better be evidence-based and work. If the scientific theory that a scientist is playing politics with is total bullshit, then it is an easy matter to ruin this scientist - simply by showing that the theory is bullshit.

              Therefore, even a politicised scientist has to get the science right.



              ummmm no... "preconceived" and "unproven" ideas get filtered through evidence. It is ultimately the data that determines whether a theory is good and workable or just bullshit.

              This is in strict contrast to the shit that goes on with religions, cults, "faiths", "spiritual movements" and other pseudo-intellectual bullshit such as postmodernism. These systems are ultimately built upon internalised lying and deception which followers are not allowed to question and thereby reveal to be such.

              BACK TO TOPIC:

              Your response to my previous post is exactly the same bullshit I spoke about regarding postmodernists in my previous post,

              You:
              • didn't actually respond to what I had written in my previous post, only babbled on about some unconnected stuff
              • in any case what you had responded with was complete and utter bullshit lacking even a minor understanding about how science works.
              You were applying exactly the tactics I'd spoken about in my previous post and most likely for the same reasons.

              Just as I had said, postmodernists lie and deceive ultimately for power - because they don't understand science and are unable to harness it in terms of influencing people. They bluff and bullshit in order for people to think that they are "intellectual" and hence are worthy of being listened to and followed.

              The typical tactic of postmodernists is to use language in a manner that it is completely incomprehensible. That is how they hide the fact that they are lying, deceiving and ultimately full of shit. Their crap becomes inaccessible and people fall for it by default because they are not able to easily question it.

              All of this sounds a lot like you based on the evidence of your previous posts...
              The reason i dont need to reply to these bullshits because its completely irrelevant to the topic. You highlighted all the unnecessary words in red but you very cleverly avoid the real crux of my post, which i have copy pasted again for you.
              Older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones.

              A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history.

              Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Suna123 View Post

                Newtons gravitational law is such a theory which got "refuted" later. Newton got it wrong because of his "worldview" - to use your wording.
                However, Newtons gravitational law is still valid and jumping from buildings inevitably let you feel Newtons power with exactly GxM1M2/r2. Scientific laws which describe nature don't run out of validity ever.

                An example for your claim with relevance in reality would be very helpful. I don't think there is any.
                Are you really trying to conclude that the fate of social science depends on whether i will jump from a building and not die?

                You are not getting the point. I am not saying that scientists who discovered different sorts of pharmaceuticals are bullshit. Point is that science indeed went deeper and perfectly engineered the objectivity of chemicals as drugs from the nature. That is why if I am having fever, i will have bigger trust on an Antibiotic. Now i know that if i boil Ajwain, tulsi, turmeric and ginger in boiled water and drink, my fever will be gone too and its nothing but simple science but i dont know its accuracy, as i don't know the ginger i will buy, how good it is, what are the perfect chemical composition of these spices.

                In my childhood I myself was cured from jaundice by drinking boiled 'neem' plant water. Although that increased my hunger ten times and i became a bit chubby after getting cured.

                Everything is science, the whole nature is science itself, whether you deny it or not. But how you engineer this science into utilities that are beneficial to human in different societies is very different and also comes under the purview of art(management, social science, anthropology etc).
                Last edited by RoyofSupratik; 10-15-2017, 07:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #38


                  This is how Science has been politicized in this Modern world. Point is that if the conclusion is already fixed and you can always tweak your scientific experiments and "collect evidence".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                    The reason i dont need to reply to these bullshits because its completely irrelevant to the topic. You highlighted all the unnecessary words in red but you very cleverly avoid the real crux of my post, which i have copy pasted again for you.
                    Older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones.
                    A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history.
                    Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
                    We note yet again that you have merely verbally masturbated without actually responding to what has been posted - here:

                    http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...90#post3026590

                    Oh, here's the opinion from a real scientist Richard Feynman - who among other things talks about pseudo-science and bullshit use of language to bluff and bullshit:


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post


                      This is how Science has been politicized in this Modern world. Point is that if the conclusion is already fixed and you can always tweak your scientific experiments and "collect evidence".
                      This is a comparison between a scientific method and a non scientific method... Telling that what politicians/newspapers are doing has no scientific basis.
                      We also call that a caricature, in this case : to mock politicians.

                      It's funny to see someone twisting even a caricature to try to make his words more trustable, criticizing scientific methods and sciences by saying science tries to fit its beliefs by.... trying to use content and explain them in a way that fit your beliefs, even if it's illogical.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
                        Oh, here's the opinion from a real scientist Richard Feynman - who among other things talks about pseudo-science and bullshit use of language to bluff and bullshit:


                        I disagree with this man, while you have, indeed, a bunch of retard and a ton of shit in social sciences (and for having a friend that shared with me studies from sociologists and her classmates' works, I can only confirm this point... (seriously, I was wondering how could those poeple reach a master)), there are also some rare people and studies following or trying to follow a scientific method to explain how our society does work, and it give, sometime, soem very interesting results.
                        So maybe I wouldn't call that sciences since it's a little bit different (especially because of the stooooopid), at least not for now, but calling it pseudoscience is kinda insulting for the people who are really working and not making intellectual masturbation.

                        Unfortunately, those are still rare and considering the number of idiots and impostators in these fields... It's not gonna be better :/
                        Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 10-16-2017, 11:26 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          well, what i generally see here is many fallacies and people just spitting the "postmodernist bullshit" 'argument'. what i'd like to know is exactly why you oppose it, or why you support it, and in a well argumented way

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                            This is a comparison between a scientific method and a non scientific method... Telling that what politicians/newspapers are doing has no scientific basis.
                            We also call that a caricature, in this case : to mock politicians.

                            It's funny to see someone twisting even a caricature to try to make his words more trustable, criticizing scientific methods and sciences by saying science tries to fit its beliefs by.... trying to use content and explain them in a way that fit your beliefs, even if it's illogical.
                            You need to focus your luminosity in saving your culture, my friend. For no reason you are wasting your precious time in twisting my posts.

                            I was indeed talking about politicization of Science over here and not exactly blaming normal scientific methods. This politicization of Science itself can be illustrated through Foucault's power conception. You guys have brought up unrelated theories of physical science and laws of gravitation over here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              I was indeed talking about politicization of Science over here and not exactly blaming normal scientific methods. This politicization of Science itself can be illustrated through Foucault's power conception. You guys have brought up unrelated theories of physical science and laws of gravitation over here.
                              No, science is totally relevant here - natural physical law is independent of the discoverer or, for that matter, people who verbally masturbate whatever postmodernist bullshit.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                                I disagree with this man, while you have, indeed, a bunch of retard and a ton of shit in social sciences (and for having a friend that shared with me studies from sociologists and her classmates' works, I can only confirm this point... (seriously, I was wondering how could those poeple reach a master)),
                                Remember that this interview with Richard Feynman was from the 1970s when things were really bad in the social sciences.

                                Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                                there are also some rare people and studies following or trying to follow a scientific method to explain how our society does work, and it give, sometime, soem very interesting results.
                                Yes, there are a few who actually do proper statistical analyses of their data, construct proper hypotheses to test and so on and who don't throw together "theories" based upon a couple of personal experiences and opinions.

                                Also, Feynman applies a very strict definition of science - one that leads to physical law.

                                Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                                So maybe I wouldn't call that sciences since it's a little bit different (especially because of the stooooopid), at least not for now, but calling it pseudoscience is kinda insulting for the people who are really working and not making intellectual masturbation.
                                Let's face it - the bulk of social sciences presently is pseudoscience. It has become far worse with the infiltration of postmodernist bullshit into humanities departments around the world.

                                Don't let the New Yorker accent of Feynman in his pronunciation of the word "stupid" mislead you regarding his intellectual capacity - I'd suggest that he was a far better physicist overall than the overrated Einstein.

                                Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                                Unfortunately, those are still rare and considering the number of idiots and impostators in these fields... It's not gonna be better :/
                                No it's not... until people really start showing up most of their writing for what it is - verbal masturbation.

                                Also, the sewerage pipe of this pseudo-intellectual crap needs to be shut down. Feynman lead the way here - that just about all things can be expressed in clear language, not woo woo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X