Foucault? The physicist Foucault [1] responsible for the Foucault Pendulum and many other advances? Or the philosopher Foucault [2] responsible for some unfalsifiable fluff of great interest to philosophy department tea parties -- conversations that typically return to Jacques Derrida [3], the "show-stopper" who thought there was no basis for shared, objective truths, and whose views are regularly discussed as though their decoded meaning doesn't contradict the possibility of their productive discussion.
It's a sign of the times that, in Web searches, Foucault the philosopher completely buries Foucault the physicist.
(I got snookered into reading this because "power" has a meaning in physics apart from its meaning in philosophy -- the former of which actually means something.)
Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.
The proposition that there is no such thing as objective truth is itself a proposition of a supposed objective truth.
Postmodernism is therefore paradoxical and logically invalid, in a broad and categorical sense. Adhering to it is therefore irrational and no different than any other non-falsifiable religion that must simply be accepted on faith, without any logical proof or reasoning.
Postmodernism is therefore paradoxical ... Adhering to it is therefore irrational
All ideas are paradoxes, and yet we must adhere to some. The act of mapping reality to words necessarily creates lies. Imagining you have some ideas which aren't paradoxes is self delusion. And attempting to not have ideas is death. Therefore adhering to paradoxical ideas is rational.
I would say a hallmark of sanity is the ability to work within paradoxes.
The idea that there are an infinity of primes is not at all paradoxical, it's an uncontroversial factual assertion. Most of mathematics shows the same property.
> The act of mapping reality to words necessarily creates lies.
Not the words out of which scientific theories are constructed. Evolution. Biology. Physics. These are falsifiable (they must be to qualify as scientific theories), but they are not lies -- a word that means false claims made by a speaker who knows his claims are false. You're misusing the word "lies" to refer to something else.
> Imagining you have some ideas which aren't paradoxes is self delusion.
See above. Your claim that all ideas are lies is the essence of the postmodern position. A postmodernist first denies the existence of shared, objective truths, then tries to start a dialogue requiring what's just been denied.
> I would say a hallmark of sanity is the ability to work within paradoxes.
That's certainly true, but it doesn't follow that all is paradox, or that all statements are lies.
> Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.
Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.
> Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance ...
How much substance is required beyond the fact that these ideas are unfalsifiable? To a scientist like myself, saying that places the burden of evidence on the other party, who can only respond with a basis for empirical falsification. But that's not possible in philosophy, by definition.
Am I obliged to prove that Bigfoot is a myth? No, I need only say there's no evidence. And I'm not under a burden to to prove a negative in such a discussion -- impossible in any case. That makes a statement about Bigfoot comparable to statements about philosophy -- it's unfalsifiable.
> Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths"
It didn't require many words for you to establish your post-modern credentials. From here, assuming I were inclined, we would have an inconclusive-by-definition debate about whether there are objective truths ... we would philosophize.
You should read some philosophy of science. Start with Karl Popper. He's the person whose work you're referencing when you talk about falsifiability, and I think you'll relate to his writing, but he'll also challenge you to think a little more deeply about what science is - and indeed, what truth is.
Foucault is not Derrida and his writing is crisp and clear and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history). He dominates web searches for 'Foucault' quite meritoriously as Discipline and Punish is far more relevant today than 19th century work on the speed of light -- which unless I've missed the removal of the photon from current scientific explanations did not nail the coffin lid on corpuscular models of light despite the claims of the Wikipedia. I won't make a similar claim regarding the reasons a google for "foucault's pendulum" turns up more related to an Italian than a French...though personally I think Eco's work is more interesting and entertaining and informative.
Yes, that seems to be true, but from the standpoint of falsifiability, of empirical testing, they're equal.
The very fact that people feel compelled to draw a line between Foucault and Derrida, one that hasn't already been drawn by objective evidence, speaks for itself.
> ... and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history ...
Please don't make this mistake. However strongly you feel about the present topic, don't try to fit philosophy into the science straitjacket. Philosophy's value lies elsewhere.
Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? In order to even participate in this forum doesn't meaning, and thus, truth, require a broader definition?
> Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning?
Well, I didn't say that. I said it was an unfalsifiable topic.
> Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics?
Didn't say that either, and just as well, since there are no truths in physics. In science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true. All legitimate scientific theories remain open to falsification by new empirical evidence, in perpetuity.
Where does the concept of "falsification" come from? Karl Popper was a philosopher. The concept you using to dismiss philosophy is a product of philosophy and wouldn't exist without philosophy.
> In science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true.
This statement concerns logic and epistemology, both branches of philosophy, not science.
Falsification came about as a solution to the demarcation problem and the problem of induction (both products of philosophy, not science).
You are right that most philosophical statements are not falsifiable, but that simply means they are not scientific according to a definition of science that assumes all scientific statements are falsifiable. In short, you haven't really said anything (our understanding of circular reasoning and begging the question also come from philosophy).
Is an idea like "in science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true" falsifiable? If yes, what kind of experiment could be designed to test it? If no, does that mean it's of no value?
Please don't keep making the same point over and over. It gets boring after a while and then crosses into harangue, like someone at a dinner party with an idée fixe. If you want to make the point once and move on, that's fine, but then please let people who are interested in Foucault discuss Foucault.
> Please don't keep making the same point over and over.
Sure, not problem. I'll stop pointing out that philosophy is a contentless debating society when the philosophers realize it, and when they stop treating it as though it constitutes an objective science (a point argued by others in this thread).
It's a sign of the times that, in Web searches, Foucault the philosopher completely buries Foucault the physicist.
(I got snookered into reading this because "power" has a meaning in physics apart from its meaning in philosophy -- the former of which actually means something.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida