>Ok, so we now know that Dawkins did not scientifically disprove it, which means it remains within the realm of plausibility.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Dawkins showed that the Gaia theory is, to use a phrase that people sometimes use to criticize String Theory, "not even wrong". I.e., it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the concept living organism means in Biology. It isn't a coherent theory so you can't scientifically disprove it the way you could disprove a coherent (but wrong) scientific theory.

Definitely eager to learn more about his approach.

It's just an interview with a philosopher about their life. There was pretty much no discussion of actual philosophy related to free will.

This is being partially blocked by a demand for a paid subscription

I'm currently writing a book with a section that compares Chinese and Jewish/Jerusalem's religions. You can check out my website but the book is a year or two away from completion.

www.jcrossroads.com

Very curious: How many Aristotelians do we have here? How aware are this subreddit's members of the reason that Plato is pointing up and Aristotle is pointing down for one specific reason in Raphael's "School of Athens" painting?

Good points!

To be clear, I didn't ask my question because I was certain that there is no use for studying this! I just think that we ought to always be asking ourselves if a field of research is worthwhile. (At least that's how I operate in my life and work.)

Not sure this is specific to Latour. He certainly had his own way of looking at the issue through ANT. He was buddy buddy with a lot of Frankfurt School guys, and reconciling the general and the particular, form and content, individual and society, has been around since Hegel (Philosophy of Right) and definitely had a prominent part in 20th century Marxism. Dialectic of Enlightenment, for example.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Reading "...Latour was a peg who never quite fit the most prestigious holes." and seeing he ended up at lessor institutions. Thought at first he was regulated to the School of Mime!

If you want to change a country become rich and powerful. Nothing else will change a country.

The whole field of phenomenology seems to be about investigating the connection between these supposedly separate domains. Husserl was on this stuff in 1929 and like others have mentioned, a lot of eastern religions are entirely based on this idea

[removed]

Bingo.

And taoism and Buddhism

[removed]

>> Is "debunk" synonymous with "scientifically disproven"?

> No. To be disproven a theory needs to be coherent and falsifiable.

Ok, so we now know that Dawkins did not scientifically disprove it, which means it remains within the realm of plausibility.

> Dawkins debunked the idea that the Earth could be considered a living organism the way a nematode or human are. He showed quite clearly that by many criteria this simply isn't true.

Isn't true scientifically/literally, or isn't true colloquially/perceptually? Or something else?

>> Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

> I discussed this in another forum. I see the scientific method as something that can encompass all disciplines. For me science consists of a series of methods: experiments, peer review, analysis, math,... Not every discipline uses every method but one can study any topic that seeks objective truth scientifically.

You didn't answer the question.

> What's more I maintain that science is the only method that has shown it can lead to objective truth.

We are all welcome to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Do you have any substantial evidence that this is actually true?

> Having said that, not everything is science

Just everything (literally) that leads to objective truth though, right?

> But when people use the word theory for me the only thing that can justify using that word is science.

Can you explain your reasoning, including citations of prominent people?

> But when you call it a theory you are saying it can make predictions and explain things in a way that is also falsifiable.

Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

> So yes for me theory and scientific theory are the same thing but I don't consider it conflating.

What is the precise meaning of "to me" in this context?

> I think that some academics (e.g., Postmodernism is notorious for this) like to call things theories when if you examine them closely they are just polysyllabic jargon for fairly straight forward ideas (e.g., that we live in a sexist, racist society, that colonialism was unjust, etc.).

The two words I bolded - do you mean these literally, or is there an implicit "to me" in play?

>Is "debunk" synonymous with "scientifically disproven"?

No. To be disproven a theory needs to be coherent and falsifiable. For example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was coherent and made predictions that were pretty accurate but as we could measure more precisely it was clear the Copernican model was more accurate. Debunk means that the theory isn't even coherent or falsifiable. Dawkins debunked the idea that the Earth could be considered a living organism the way a nematode or human are. He showed quite clearly that by many criteria this simply isn't true.

>Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

I discussed this in another forum. I see the scientific method as something that can encompass all disciplines. For me science consists of a series of methods: experiments, peer review, analysis, math,... Not every discipline uses every method but one can study any topic that seeks objective truth scientifically. What's more I maintain that science is the only method that has shown it can lead to objective truth.

Having said that, not everything is science. One can write essays that are meant to inspire people or motivate them to contemplate certain aspects of the universe or their life. But when people use the word theory for me the only thing that can justify using that word is science. So if Gaia is a literary device meant to encourage people to think about how the entire planet is one biosphere and that small changes can ripple and affect us all then I'm fine with it. But when you call it a theory you are saying it can make predictions and explain things in a way that is also falsifiable. So yes for me theory and scientific theory are the same thing but I don't consider it conflating. I think that some academics (e.g., Postmodernism is notorious for this) like to call things theories when if you examine them closely they are just polysyllabic jargon for fairly straight forward ideas (e.g., that we live in a sexist, racist society, that colonialism was unjust, etc.).

I was mostly establishing that exploring the ethics of war has a use, not that it was always used. (that not all conflicts are inherently unethical)

If you want to change a country, get involved in its politics. There is no shortcut.

Advaita Vedanta, even.

[removed]

[removed]