Theme: Science

[T]he Next Grand Narrative?

1) The evolution of all disciplines has been away from myth to reason to calculation: a set of operations. (Webber). 

2) I think that the output narrative produced by this age will look far more like social science than philosophy.

3) I think that just as previous revolutions in the the sciences have produced useful but less fulfilling visions of the universe, that this revolution in human understanding will be the long sought after social science, and that it will be equally useful but unsatisfying.

4) I think the only reason postmodernism succeeded – like pseudosciences that birthed it: Boaz(anthropology), Freud(psychology), Marx(economics and sociology), Cantor(mathematics), Keynes (mathematical economics), and the Frankfurt School (Use of Falsehood and Strawman) – was that the thinkers of the early 20th century failed to solve the problem of calculations (Operations) in social science: Brouwer (math), Bridgman(Physics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), Popper (philosophy). In each field, someone understood at least vaguely that the solution was in a single direction, but they could not produce a science – social science – from it.

5) I think there are two reasons that they failed: a) the competition from pseudosciences was preferred by all, particularly, the academy that sought to replace the moral authority of the churches. b) the authors themselves were not able to make the same disassociation from the framing of moral intuition that was Einstein in in s framing of gravity. In fact, there is a moral sensibility to every thinker’s arguments. So the cause of their arguments (a sense of immorality to the pseudosciences) was too influenced by moral intuitions of their own cultures.

6) I am fairly sure I know the basic structure of this science, and I am fairly sure that it is useful, true, and as usual: unsatisfying.

[T]he Next Grand Narrative?

1) The evolution of all disciplines has been away from myth to reason to calculation: a set of operations. (Webber). 

2) I think that the output narrative produced by this age will look far more like social science than philosophy.

3) I think that just as previous revolutions in the the sciences have produced useful but less fulfilling visions of the universe, that this revolution in human understanding will be the long sought after social science, and that it will be equally useful but unsatisfying.

4) I think the only reason postmodernism succeeded – like pseudosciences that birthed it: Boaz(anthropology), Freud(psychology), Marx(economics and sociology), Cantor(mathematics), Keynes (mathematical economics), and the Frankfurt School (Use of Falsehood and Strawman) – was that the thinkers of the early 20th century failed to solve the problem of calculations (Operations) in social science: Brouwer (math), Bridgman(Physics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), Popper (philosophy). In each field, someone understood at least vaguely that the solution was in a single direction, but they could not produce a science – social science – from it.

5) I think there are two reasons that they failed: a) the competition from pseudosciences was preferred by all, particularly, the academy that sought to replace the moral authority of the churches. b) the authors themselves were not able to make the same disassociation from the framing of moral intuition that was Einstein in in s framing of gravity. In fact, there is a moral sensibility to every thinker’s arguments. So the cause of their arguments (a sense of immorality to the pseudosciences) was too influenced by moral intuitions of their own cultures.

6) I am fairly sure I know the basic structure of this science, and I am fairly sure that it is useful, true, and as usual: unsatisfying.