Session 8

1. Session 8 The (discursive) construction of ‘reality’

2. The discursive construction of knowledge and reality… Cardinal Bellarmine vs. Galileo Galilei Richard Rorty (1931-2007) I have excellent independent evidence for the geocentric model, namely from the Holy Scriptures: they clearly say that everything moves around the Earth – we are the fix-point of the Universe…! Look through my telescope, Eminence, and see for yourself whether it’s true or not: the Earth moves – and it moves around the Sun… ! “When Copernicus began saying ‘The earth goes round the sun’, this sentence must have seemed merely a ‘way of speaking’. But when the Copernicans had finished redescribing portions of reality in the light of these sentences, we started speaking of these sentences as hypotheses, which might quite possibly be true. In time, each of these sentences became accepted, at least within certain communities of inquiry, as obviously true.”

3. Battle for words…?Galileo …Eppursimuove. (And yet it moves). The question now is: Who’s got the right definition of the terms ‘sun’, ‘earth’, ‘planet’…?Do Galileo and I mean the same by ‘sun’ and ‘earth’? (Roy Harris). Set against a magnificent backdrop of humanity’s place in the universe, Galileo’s sotto voce pronouncement (Eppursimuove) exemplifies how time-honoured linguistic usage can be called to account in the latest court of science. In making this statement, Galileo challenged the very definitions of terms designating the familiar heavenly bodies as bodies ‘revolving around the earth’. If Galileo’s substantive claim was to be upheld , there was no way that the use of the verb ‘to move’ could carry on quite as before.

4. [Dawkins’ voice-over]: Isn’t Deepak Chopra just exploiting quantum jargon as plausible sounding hokuspokus? Chopra: Quantum healing is a theory that a shift in consciousness creates a shift in biology. That’s it! [. . .] Dawkins: Where does the quantum theory come into that? Chopra: Oh, it’s just a metaphor. Just like an electron, or a photon is an indivisible unit of information and energy, a thought is an indivisible unit of consciousness. Dawkins: Oh, it’s a metaphor for ‘unit’. It has nothing to do with ‘quantum theory’ as in physics. Chopra: No, as quantum theory has a lot to say about observer effect, there is a school of physicists who believe that ‘quantum leaps’, for example, are examples of discontinuity, and creativity and consciousness is also an example of discontinuity. And that healing may be a biological phenomenon that relies on biological creativity, that at very fundamental levels it may be a discontinuous phenomenon – something unpredictable that happens in the proliferation of uncertainty. Dawkins: It sounds like a sort of ‘poetic’ use of the word discontinuity – it’s actually confusion, isn’t it, to bring in quantum theory other than as a metaphor – it sounds like you’re both using it as a metaphor and a little tinge of something like what physicists are talking about as well. Chopra: Well, I think there’s controversy: the afficionados in the world of quantum physics have somehow ‘hijacked’ the word for their own use. Dawkins: Oh?! O.k. So they have hijacked your word ‘quantum’? Chopra: I think what happens is there are fundamentalists in science. . . Dawkins: That is absolutely wrong! Scientists try to sort out those bits that we don’t understand. . . Chopra: Scientists have become so arrogant. . .in its premiss that it has all the answers in a mechanistic approach that it has. (Dawkins, Enemies of Reason) Words standing for things in the real world (reocentrism)words standing for ideas in the mind (psychocentrism)

5. When asked by a man about the ‘why’ of our existence, and what science has to say to that, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated the following: What I would say about the question ‘why?’ is: ‘why do you have any right to ask it?’. It’s not a meaningful question, except – unless you specify the kind of answer you’re expecting. As a biologist it’s very easy to ask the question ‘why do birds have wings?’, for example. We can do that in Darwinian terms. If you say, however, ‘why do mountains exist?’: there are some questions which simply don’t deserve an answer. I mean, the question ‘why do mountains exist?’: you could give an answer in terms of the geological processes that give rise to mountains. But that’s not what you want, is it? You want something about the purpose of mountains: ‘What is the purpose of a mountain?’. It’s a silly question – doesn’t deserve an answer. The mere fact that you can ask a question, the mere fact that you can frame a question in the English language doesn’t mean that it’s entitled to an answer. If I say to you: ‘What is the colour of jealousy?’: it’s a perfectly grammatical English sentence, but it’s not a question that deserves an answer. The correct answer is: ‘Don’t ask such a silly question’. (Dawkins 2008)

6. Is it useful to think of knowledge as a discursive / social / cultural construct ? The ‘BARBARA CASE’

7. One of my sister’s neighbours once told my sister the reason why, every Monday, she had to look after little Nicholas, the son of her cousin Barbara: her cousin Barbara was sufferingfromthebaby-blues and neededhelp; thisneighbour of mysister’s also told her that Barbara was expecting her second child, soon to beborn. Some time afterthisepisode, mysister was brieflyintroduced to Barbara by her neighbour, as thelattertwohappened to bedrivingby her house. Shortlyaftertheincident, theneighbourinvitesmysister to her place, togetherwithothermothers; theremysistermeetscousin Barbara, well advanced in pregnancy. Her child, Nicholas, ispresenttoo. Aroundthesame time (itisthe end of August), schoolstartsagain. At theparents’ evening, thecouplesintroducethemselves, amongwhommysister and her husband, as well as a pregnantwomancalledBarbara (with her husband): later on, mysisterrecalledthetwomentioningthattheyhad a soncalledNicholas. In thefollowingweeksmysistersees Barbara on a fewoccasions, as theybothtaketheirchildren to thesame kindergarten in themornings.

8. Thefirstday of schoolshebriefly talks to Barbara, forsheseems to be desperate (her childiscryingbecause he does not want to stay in kindergarten). Some time afterthat, mysisterlearnsfrom her neighbourthat her cousin Barbara has givenbirth to a girl. Shortlybefore Christmas, the kindergarten teachersinvite all themothers to a dinner party. My sisteristhe last to arrive at therestaurant and finds a placenext to Barbara. As shecould not remember her son’sname, sheasked her; Barbara tells her that her soniscalled Nicholas. My sister, somewhatapologetically, explains to her thatsheisaskingbecausethemothers, including Barbara, haveusuallyalreadyleftbythe time shearriveswith her child. Sheaddsthatsheonlyrecallsseeing her twoorthreetimeswith her boy at the kindergarten. Barbara thenmentions to her thattheyhadactuallymetforthefirst time at her cousin’s, and mentionsmysister’sneighbour. My sistercannotbelieve her ears: thiswoman, mother of theboywhoattendsthesameclass as her child, isthesamewoman as theoneshe was introduced to in front of her house and whomshemet at her neighbour’splacesomefourmonthsbefore? An important detail in all thisisthat Barbara apparentlydid not change her lookbetweenthefirst time shemetmysister and theschool-relatedepisodesthatfollowed. (Pablé, Integrating the ‘real’, 2011, p. 26)

9. Questions: • With respect to this particular episode, does it make sense to claim that reality is a ‘discursive construct’ and respectively a ‘cultural (or social) construct’? Discuss. • Is this episode ordinary or extraordinary? Or perhaps both? Discuss how important ‘recognition’ is for our everyday affairs. • What does it mean to be ‘one and the same’ person? What is ‘sameness’?