Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 09:22:10 +0000 (GMT) From: mkusch@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk To: h-verkko@sara.cc.utu.fi Subject: On relativism
Jukka Sarjala writes:
> My point was that the protagonist of the ideal of absolute truth cannot
> be satisfied with any truths, because he has a regulative to search one.
> The relativist on the other hand has a tendency towards naive dogmatism,
> because he is not so worried about truth-questions. He so to say takes
> his own (modern) conception of reality for granted.
I am unconvinved by this line of thought for several reasons: (1) What is this ascription based upon? Your observations of realists and relativists? Do relativists work less hard to find out things than 'absolutists'? I can only say that members of my field (social studies of science) in general, and of my unit here in Edinburgh are as produc- tive and interested in finding out things about the world as any truth absolutists I know. (And members of my unit all would subscribe to epistemological relativism.) (2) But what if the notion of absolute truth is itself bogus? (3) Throwing the accusation of dogmatism around is little helpful. Most relativists I know see their opponents as dogmatic, too. If I as a relativist was a naive dogmatist why would I be writing to this list?
> There are other paradoxs as well. When a relativist says that every
> proposition about the world has its limits, he throws also his own
> argument over the shoulder.
Fortunately, this kind of argument against relativism has been defused often enough.
> Relativism hasn't surely grown out of liberal democracy. But we cannot
> help that every political system/camp has its weaknesses.
Meaning that the weakness of every political camp is that some of its members flirt with relativism???
Terv. Martin Kusch Science Studies Unit University of Edinburgh