<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Richard Rorty</title>
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: BÃ©rubÃ© on Rorty &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29272</link>
		<dc:creator>BÃ©rubÃ© on Rorty &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29272</guid>
		<description>[...] telling the two apart.) In one contribution, semi-retired blogger of leisure Michael BÃ©rubÃ© says just what I was saying, except from a better-informed and more eloquent perspective.  In the spring of 1985, when I was a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] telling the two apart.) In one contribution, semi-retired blogger of leisure Michael BÃ©rubÃ© says just what I was saying, except from a better-informed and more eloquent perspective.  In the spring of 1985, when I was a [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: malvasia bianca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; finished book queue; rorty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29270</link>
		<dc:creator>malvasia bianca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; finished book queue; rorty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29270</guid>
		<description>[...] correctly. (I hope that the shock of my finally getting around to reading the book wasn&#8217;t the last straw for its author.) Which raises a question: am I ever going to get around to reading the third volume [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] correctly. (I hope that the shock of my finally getting around to reading the book wasn&#8217;t the last straw for its author.) Which raises a question: am I ever going to get around to reading the third volume [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norma Arnold</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29271</link>
		<dc:creator>Norma Arnold</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29271</guid>
		<description>This is a sub-question, not on Rorty himself:  As a non-scientist and non-poet, I do not know the name of Ed Matheson.  Wonderful poem, delineating our dilemmas. What else does he write/publish? Couldn't find anything on Google, either. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a sub-question, not on Rorty himself:  As a non-scientist and non-poet, I do not know the name of Ed Matheson.  Wonderful poem, delineating our dilemmas. What else does he write/publish? Couldn&#8217;t find anything on Google, either. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beachcombing &#171; The American Sector</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29269</link>
		<dc:creator>Beachcombing &#171; The American Sector</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29269</guid>
		<description>[...]  - Richard Rorty remembered by physicists, lawyers, and a long lost radio [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;]  - Richard Rorty remembered by physicists, lawyers, and a long lost radio [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cosmic Variance: Physics, postmodernism, and Richard Rorty &#171; Identity Unknown</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29268</link>
		<dc:creator>Cosmic Variance: Physics, postmodernism, and Richard Rorty &#171; Identity Unknown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29268</guid>
		<description>[...] Jun 12th, 2007 by Ryan Lanham    Richard Rorty [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Jun 12th, 2007 by Ryan Lanham    Richard Rorty [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tyler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29267</link>
		<dc:creator>tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29267</guid>
		<description>"Noosphere" in its colloqial use just means the current universe of ideas: the mental landscape of the world. I don't buy the esoteric meanings any more than you, Gordon...I knew after I hit Submit that I probably should have used a different word.

Pieceful, very well said. This is precisely why I love science so much - because it proves that not everything is constructed or relative, that certain things truly are always as they are, regardless of what language you speak or what frame of reference you use to think about it. There's no room for cultural interpretation when, say, reporting the measurement of a constant whose value reproduces to within one part in a billion regardless of where and when you measure it (assuming your measurement apparatus and technique are good enough).

The deepest irony of postmodernism is this: the essence of the idea is that all thought systems are only valid within certain contexts. The postmodernist - deconstructionist approach is in itself a system of thought; but somehow its strongest adherents never notice that, by their own logic, there must be a limit beyond which their system is invalid. Science - or perhaps more accurately, mathematics - clearly defines that limit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Noosphere&#8221; in its colloqial use just means the current universe of ideas: the mental landscape of the world. I don&#8217;t buy the esoteric meanings any more than you, Gordon&#8230;I knew after I hit Submit that I probably should have used a different word.</p>
<p>Pieceful, very well said. This is precisely why I love science so much - because it proves that not everything is constructed or relative, that certain things truly are always as they are, regardless of what language you speak or what frame of reference you use to think about it. There&#8217;s no room for cultural interpretation when, say, reporting the measurement of a constant whose value reproduces to within one part in a billion regardless of where and when you measure it (assuming your measurement apparatus and technique are good enough).</p>
<p>The deepest irony of postmodernism is this: the essence of the idea is that all thought systems are only valid within certain contexts. The postmodernist - deconstructionist approach is in itself a system of thought; but somehow its strongest adherents never notice that, by their own logic, there must be a limit beyond which their system is invalid. Science - or perhaps more accurately, mathematics - clearly defines that limit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pieceful</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29262</link>
		<dc:creator>pieceful</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29262</guid>
		<description>Just to add to Sean's eloquent description of his intellectual utopia, it would be nice if postmodernists acknowledged what it is that distinguishes science from other human cultural forms: the institutionalization of revolution. As Sean has said before, science is, more than anything else, a method, not an ideology or prescribed set of truths. And as far as I know, this is a unique trait among all other cultural forms. All truth in science is flmsy in some sense, since it is subject to experimental verification. (See more &lt;a href="http://pieceful.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/science-as-a-cultural-system-the-institutionalization-of-revolution/" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;
on this).

On a related note, one might say that effective field theory is the ultimate postmodern scientific theory since it explicitly defines the energy scales over which it is valid. As a pomo might say, effective field theory is the opposite of a hegemonic, totalizing discourse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to add to Sean&#8217;s eloquent description of his intellectual utopia, it would be nice if postmodernists acknowledged what it is that distinguishes science from other human cultural forms: the institutionalization of revolution. As Sean has said before, science is, more than anything else, a method, not an ideology or prescribed set of truths. And as far as I know, this is a unique trait among all other cultural forms. All truth in science is flmsy in some sense, since it is subject to experimental verification. (See more <a href="http://pieceful.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/science-as-a-cultural-system-the-institutionalization-of-revolution/" rel="nofollow">here</a><br />
on this).</p>
<p>On a related note, one might say that effective field theory is the ultimate postmodern scientific theory since it explicitly defines the energy scales over which it is valid. As a pomo might say, effective field theory is the opposite of a hegemonic, totalizing discourse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29261</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29261</guid>
		<description>Amen to that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen to that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Haelfix</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29263</link>
		<dc:creator>Haelfix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29263</guid>
		<description>Eh? Please cite a single instance in the history of science where an issue of 'language' was important in the elucidation of a physical system.

So no, we have absolutely nothing to learn from the wacky postmodernists about such things, b/c ultimately physics is supposed to be 'language' invariant (hence the strong reliance on mathematics and the drive to remove all human 'presence' or residuals from the laws that govern the world).

On a related note, I find it sad that intellectuals can't simply call a spade for what it is.  The entire postmodernist, constructionist endeavour has been perhaps one of the greatest embarrasments in the history of philosophy, and it would be nice if it would just go away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eh? Please cite a single instance in the history of science where an issue of &#8216;language&#8217; was important in the elucidation of a physical system.</p>
<p>So no, we have absolutely nothing to learn from the wacky postmodernists about such things, b/c ultimately physics is supposed to be &#8216;language&#8217; invariant (hence the strong reliance on mathematics and the drive to remove all human &#8216;presence&#8217; or residuals from the laws that govern the world).</p>
<p>On a related note, I find it sad that intellectuals can&#8217;t simply call a spade for what it is.  The entire postmodernist, constructionist endeavour has been perhaps one of the greatest embarrasments in the history of philosophy, and it would be nice if it would just go away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ozziebat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29266</link>
		<dc:creator>ozziebat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/10/richard-rorty/#comment-29266</guid>
		<description>Suddenly Sean wants to tell us that morality is simply beyond the purview of science. Exactly like all those people who say the same thing about religion. Non-overlapping magisteria anyone? I bet St Stephen was sympathetic to pomoism too.

Sean is sympathetic to the pomos in the same way that some liberals say nice things about Islam: they don't really believe this crap but they want to distinguish themselves from horrible right-wing people who are so mean and nasty to people who basically hate everything they believe in. Let somebody else do the dirty work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suddenly Sean wants to tell us that morality is simply beyond the purview of science. Exactly like all those people who say the same thing about religion. Non-overlapping magisteria anyone? I bet St Stephen was sympathetic to pomoism too.</p>
<p>Sean is sympathetic to the pomos in the same way that some liberals say nice things about Islam: they don&#8217;t really believe this crap but they want to distinguish themselves from horrible right-wing people who are so mean and nasty to people who basically hate everything they believe in. Let somebody else do the dirty work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
