Re: <nettime> [EXT] Re: It's Time to Fight for Open Source Again (fwd)

[Sean Cubitt via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

thanks Christian and John for the queries (and Brian for the kind response)

I'm suggesting that facts are statements about the world, and subject to discussion, argument, consensus and all the other tools that language (and logic and maths) has at its disposal. Not just scientific facts: consider the statement "I have the right to carry a loaded and concealed machine gun": as a statement it can be disputed; as a truth it is indisputable, at least to the people who believe it. That was the difference I wanted to pick up.

John's question about engineering and truths is trickier. It could be resolved by a similar change of vocabulary. Engineering in its various forms has characteristics of maths, logic and a degree of written language, ie it makes statements, some of which operate as generalised rules (a mass m acting on a support of square section s exerts pressure p) not unlike the rules of syntax. Every now and then a poet discovers a way to bend syntax, or an engineer a new way to balance an elephant on a pin, that make new kinds of practice possible. Making new events occur on the basis of what we believe so far to be the case (the experimental method, but also political) is different to saying a condition is universal - even though it is risky, we can and should experiment with new modes of exchange, which means we have to dismiss universal truth-claims such as 'capitalism is the only possible economic system'.

I always feel like it's easier to prove something is false than to prove it is true.

[your note on earthquake-prone housing makes me recall William Vogt, a founding figure in Earth-systems, who wrote in 1948
‘We must … stop blaming economic systems, the weather, bad luck, or callous saints’ (History of Our Future. The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change. Edited by Libby Robin, Sverker Sörlin and Paul Warde. New Haven: Yale University Press.187-190.
substituting other terms - capital, climate, risk and the angry response of rivers etc to their subordination – make clear Vogt's certainty isn't something we can share today ]

sorry to clog inboxes with a relatively minor point
seán


________________________________
From: Christian Swertz <christian@swertz.org>
Sent: Monday, 13 November 2023 6:12 am
To: nettime l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>
Cc: Sean Cubitt <sean.cubitt@unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: [EXT] Re: <nettime> It's Time to Fight for Open Source Again (fwd)

External email: Please exercise caution

________________________________
Hi Sean, thanks very much for your arguments. Quite interesting. May I ask a question about the conclusion? If you suggest to be careful about this:


some hindrances, the concept of 'scientific consensus' still exists and
there still is, in the majority of situations, ways to differentiate
facts from misinformation.


argument by Daniel, and write this:

I used to think the anarcho-capitalists and Right-situationists had stolen
left critiques of science for their campain=gns; but no. The difference is
that they DO assert that their statements are accurate accounts of the
world. One way to recognise misonformation is the absolute certainty of
those who broadcast it that it is indeed a truth about the world.


you seem to assume that there still is a way to differentiate facts from misinformation. One condition for truth is for instance, that it is presented without absolute certainty.

Looks like a contradiction. I thus assume that I missed something. Can you give me a hint?

--
Liebe Grüße,

Christian Swertz
http://www.swertz.at<http://www.swertz.at>

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:21:59 -0700
From: John Hopkins <jhopkins@neoscenes.net>
To: Sean Cubitt via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> It's Time to Fight for Open Source Again (fwd)
Message-ID: <c8fae6d2-0b43-4449-9221-819ee3f44f68@neoscenes.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Sean, one could say that certainty (of a sort) is in dominant effect within the
practice of engineering. While I subscribe (as an engineer) to the rubric that
'technology fails', engineering is all about applying 'truths' to control the
external world (and avoid failure). Failures make the news*, but the truths
literally comprise and maintain the bulk of the entire human infrastructure
around the planet. One can question how physical 'laws' are applied, but
questioning their effect would seem suicidal.

* The one that instantly comes to mind is the widespread failure of houses and
other structures made of un-reinforced adobe in catastrophic earthquakes. (Of
course there are other social factors?poverty leading the way along with blind
faith in Allah and inadequate education?than simply the engineering, but the
physical truth is ... demonstrable.)

John
-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org