Mark Shea's article on the new atheists is copied below. It talks tacitly of tacit knowledge. The source is here.
Padding the Case for the New Atheism
Recently there has been a flurry of books from the “New Atheists.” Such figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have been holding forth to state . . . well, not anything new.
The reason there is nothing new to say is that there cannot, by the nature of the discussion, be anything new to say. When it came to the question “Does God exist?,” St. Thomas could only think of two reasonable objections in the whole history of human thought.
Sep 30, 2009
Sep 16, 2009
Prophetic words?
Chris Hedges has an impressive pedigree and a cutting cultural critique. His latest book is Empire of Illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle, a penetrating book that begins with window on world championship wrestling. A short interview with Hedges is here on YouTube.
Sep 15, 2009
The true and the pseudo problems of knowledge
The 'problem of knowledge' has traditionally been about the question of whether we can know anything certainly and if so how we can justify that knowledge. It is based on an inside-outside view which sees us (me: the knower) as a subject separated from the thing known which is the object of my knowledge.
Heidegger says that this subject-object separation assumes a subject which is not in the world of the objects that are known. As if one could put oneself on one side of a line and all things to be known on the other side. But this separation is just not the way the world is (our world: the world we live in and experience and cannot escape from). In Heidegger's language we are always and already in the world. We already know before we start to think of the so called problem of knowledge. But even more: we could not even dream up this wrong way of thinking about the question if we weren't already involved in knowing.
So if the 'old' problem of knowledge is a pseudo problem, the true problem according to Heidegger, is this: how do we, who cannot help being totally caught up in knowing the world, how do we disclose the world in which we already are? (History of the Concept of Time p.162)
Mmm... I think this could be clearer.
Heidegger says that this subject-object separation assumes a subject which is not in the world of the objects that are known. As if one could put oneself on one side of a line and all things to be known on the other side. But this separation is just not the way the world is (our world: the world we live in and experience and cannot escape from). In Heidegger's language we are always and already in the world. We already know before we start to think of the so called problem of knowledge. But even more: we could not even dream up this wrong way of thinking about the question if we weren't already involved in knowing.
So if the 'old' problem of knowledge is a pseudo problem, the true problem according to Heidegger, is this: how do we, who cannot help being totally caught up in knowing the world, how do we disclose the world in which we already are? (History of the Concept of Time p.162)
Mmm... I think this could be clearer.
Sep 14, 2009
Heidegger no realist but enjoys honey for breakfast
In Being and Time (Section 44) Martin Heidegger does not want to be identified as a realist. But he does not question the reality of the external world. And there's the issue: the reason he does not question it, is not that he is not interested in questioning it, or because he already has the answer to that question, or because it is a question that is too hard to answer. The reason that he does not ask whether the external world exists is because he thinks that is an "inappropriate formulation of the question."
So what does Heidegger mean by 'realist' if he is not one and yet he does not deny the existence of what he calls 'entities within-the-world'?
Heidegger says his view differs from every kind of realism because "realism holds that the Reality of the 'world' not only needs to be proved but also is capable of proof." Wrong on both counts says MH. He says that realism, which thinks in this way, has got the structure of of reality wrong in the first place and then with that wrong structure in mind, it asks its question. More soon...
Meanwhile, while listening to Heidegger expert, Hubert Dreyfus, (on free mp3 lectures) it was encouraging to hear him say that for 30 years he has been wrestling with Heidegger's views on realism and still isn't sure he has understood him correctly.
So what does Heidegger mean by 'realist' if he is not one and yet he does not deny the existence of what he calls 'entities within-the-world'?
Heidegger says his view differs from every kind of realism because "realism holds that the Reality of the 'world' not only needs to be proved but also is capable of proof." Wrong on both counts says MH. He says that realism, which thinks in this way, has got the structure of of reality wrong in the first place and then with that wrong structure in mind, it asks its question. More soon...
Meanwhile, while listening to Heidegger expert, Hubert Dreyfus, (on free mp3 lectures) it was encouraging to hear him say that for 30 years he has been wrestling with Heidegger's views on realism and still isn't sure he has understood him correctly.Sep 12, 2009
Tacitus' rules. OK?
Rule #1: Keep it simple
If something is worth saying, then it is worth saying clearly, concisely and in words of few syllables. This site is for laypersons, not just philosopho-persons or theologo-persons. If philosophers and theologians cannot speak with laypeople about things that matter, then perhaps they don't matter so much after all.
Maybe it is asking the impossible, but the content of this site should be serious but fascinating, simple but profound. "Escribir es pensar con claridad" said Jorge Ibargüengoitia, which means very little if you don't speak Spanish. "To write is to think clearly."
More thoughts on simply writing and avoiding 'weasel words' will soon be found at Tacitus' thoughts on writing well.
Rule #2: Keep it friendly
Please contribute to the dialogue vigorously but politely. Remember the two pitfalls of the net: it is faceless and fast. It is easy to misunderstand people, to be rude to them, and to do both before you have had time to say, “I think it’s time for elevenses.”
A dialogue is only worth having when both partners listen with respect, and speak with humility. So be it! Or be censored, censured or sent packing.
Rule #3: About blogs, comments and articles
The aim of a blog entry and the comments that follow it, is to conduct a discussion in byte sized chunks. Longer articles will be posted elsewhere with links to the relevant blog. See the articles index for more.
If something is worth saying, then it is worth saying clearly, concisely and in words of few syllables. This site is for laypersons, not just philosopho-persons or theologo-persons. If philosophers and theologians cannot speak with laypeople about things that matter, then perhaps they don't matter so much after all.
Maybe it is asking the impossible, but the content of this site should be serious but fascinating, simple but profound. "Escribir es pensar con claridad" said Jorge Ibargüengoitia, which means very little if you don't speak Spanish. "To write is to think clearly."
More thoughts on simply writing and avoiding 'weasel words' will soon be found at Tacitus' thoughts on writing well.
Rule #2: Keep it friendly
Please contribute to the dialogue vigorously but politely. Remember the two pitfalls of the net: it is faceless and fast. It is easy to misunderstand people, to be rude to them, and to do both before you have had time to say, “I think it’s time for elevenses.”
A dialogue is only worth having when both partners listen with respect, and speak with humility. So be it! Or be censored, censured or sent packing.
Rule #3: About blogs, comments and articles
The aim of a blog entry and the comments that follow it, is to conduct a discussion in byte sized chunks. Longer articles will be posted elsewhere with links to the relevant blog. See the articles index for more.
Sep 11, 2009
Contact Tacitus
Tacitus is electronically reserved, technologically challenged, cyber shy, and fearful of non-physical spaces. But here's a photo to get you acquainted.
Tacitus does use email. That's: TacitusM at gmail full stop then com.
Tacitus' project
Tacitus’ research starts with the philosopher Richard Rorty, an advocate of relativism. Rorty believes that knowledge is culturally constructed rather than universally true. (Is that true? Really?)
Tacitus disagrees with Rorty. Tacitus thinks that science, as well as other disciplines such as theology, morality and aesthetics, can all make truth claims. But no claims to truth escape the fact that we are always and inevitably caught up in the very world that we want to know about.
The implication of this is that all knowing is a circular process—an interpretive process. But it’s not a vicious circle. If you enjoy the technical jargon, Tacitus' research is largely about hermeneutics.
Tacitus is attracted by the Continental philosophical tradition which challenges the error of seeing and talking about the world in terms of distinct subjects and objects. The problem with that idea is that it assumes we can separate ourselves from ‘the world’.
Tacitus is also attracted to analyses of science that question the ideals of certainty and proof. These ideals don’t hold philosophical water and they lead to a view that only science is on about truth.
But Tacitus is not a relativist about scientific knowledge. For example, Tacitus believes there is good reason to think that human activity causes climate change. But that doesn’t mean we can expect final proof or certainty in the matter.
So, in the face of Rorty's relativism, Tacitus wants to say that in both science and 'non-science', we arrive at knowledge in a similar way, a hermeneutic way. And part of that knowledge lies beyond explicit explanation. It is tacit knowledge. For an example of tacit knowledge, just think of how you recognized your mother’s face long before you could talk.
You may have heard echoes above of the voices of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Michael Polanyi. Tacitus is pretty keen on them. Gadamer was a philosopher who wrote about truth in the human sciences. Polanyi was a scientist who turned to philosophy of science because he was concerned about the way so called scientific knowledge was misunderstood.
Do Gadamer and Polanyi have the resources to take on Rorty? If we go on feeding Tacitus honey sandwiches for the next year or two then he/she will finish his/her research and we might know the answer.
Tacitus disagrees with Rorty. Tacitus thinks that science, as well as other disciplines such as theology, morality and aesthetics, can all make truth claims. But no claims to truth escape the fact that we are always and inevitably caught up in the very world that we want to know about.
The implication of this is that all knowing is a circular process—an interpretive process. But it’s not a vicious circle. If you enjoy the technical jargon, Tacitus' research is largely about hermeneutics.
Tacitus is attracted by the Continental philosophical tradition which challenges the error of seeing and talking about the world in terms of distinct subjects and objects. The problem with that idea is that it assumes we can separate ourselves from ‘the world’.
Tacitus is also attracted to analyses of science that question the ideals of certainty and proof. These ideals don’t hold philosophical water and they lead to a view that only science is on about truth.
But Tacitus is not a relativist about scientific knowledge. For example, Tacitus believes there is good reason to think that human activity causes climate change. But that doesn’t mean we can expect final proof or certainty in the matter.
So, in the face of Rorty's relativism, Tacitus wants to say that in both science and 'non-science', we arrive at knowledge in a similar way, a hermeneutic way. And part of that knowledge lies beyond explicit explanation. It is tacit knowledge. For an example of tacit knowledge, just think of how you recognized your mother’s face long before you could talk.
You may have heard echoes above of the voices of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Michael Polanyi. Tacitus is pretty keen on them. Gadamer was a philosopher who wrote about truth in the human sciences. Polanyi was a scientist who turned to philosophy of science because he was concerned about the way so called scientific knowledge was misunderstood.
Do Gadamer and Polanyi have the resources to take on Rorty? If we go on feeding Tacitus honey sandwiches for the next year or two then he/she will finish his/her research and we might know the answer.
About Tacitus
Tacitus is a somewhat mature-age student returning to study after years of other pursuits. Once upon a time Tacitus studied engineering and philosophy and later theology.
Tacitus enjoys teaching and has taught in the natural sciences, philosophy and theology at tertiary level in two countries and two languages.
Tacitus also read Winnie the Pooh in Cambridge when we were very young.
Currently Tacitus is researching the relationship between scientific and theological knowledge. There's more on that at Tacitus' project.
Tacitus enjoys teaching and has taught in the natural sciences, philosophy and theology at tertiary level in two countries and two languages.
Tacitus also read Winnie the Pooh in Cambridge when we were very young.
Currently Tacitus is researching the relationship between scientific and theological knowledge. There's more on that at Tacitus' project.
First blog-Why are we here?
Certainty is out. Belief is here to stay. Despite religious and atheist fundamentalisms, Benjamin Franklin was right: nothing is certain but death and taxes. Which leaves us believing a lot more than we know for certain.
A note from Tacitus' mentor This blog, owned by the inscrutable Tacitus K, is dedicated to a discussion of what philosophers call ontology, epistemology and theology. AKA: what is, how we know, and where religion fits into the mix. The idea is to have a serious but non-technical chat: science, faith and truth in conversation.
Tacitus' broad ranging blog, serves two purposes: it encourages Tacitus to write (which will also make Tacitus think), and it will provoke discussion, which will make Tacitus think some more. All of which is a 'good thing' as Pooh Bear would say. Tiddly Pom.
Sincerely,
Tacitus' Mentor
A note from Tacitus' mentor This blog, owned by the inscrutable Tacitus K, is dedicated to a discussion of what philosophers call ontology, epistemology and theology. AKA: what is, how we know, and where religion fits into the mix. The idea is to have a serious but non-technical chat: science, faith and truth in conversation.Tacitus' broad ranging blog, serves two purposes: it encourages Tacitus to write (which will also make Tacitus think), and it will provoke discussion, which will make Tacitus think some more. All of which is a 'good thing' as Pooh Bear would say. Tiddly Pom.
Sincerely,
Tacitus' Mentor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
