Michael writes:

"Marginal "scholars" don't contribute to the discourse but instead try to 
find, usually erroneous or trivial -- by means of relabeling -- issues that 
they purport will topple the whole domain.   Revisionism of course is always 
an opportunity and even a demand, but it must be substantial, conceptual, 
historically valid, born of a new world-view, as it were."

It seems to me, Michael, if Chris's excerpting is right, Smith is evidently 
convinced that he has come up with something of immense significance in 
noting that later writers have called the development of perspective   
"mathematical" or "scientific" (when there was no "science" in the modern sense 
of 
"scientific method", and mathematics doesn't seem to be an element at all). 
And that strikes me as mistaking a minnow for a whale.

And Smith's observations about professors' not professing anymore seems 
almost as trivial, and, much more important, false (see below).

If this is a characteristic reflection of the way Smith thinks, he's no one 
I want to spend time reading - given how many other worthy books are 
around. "It must be substantial, conceptual, historically valid, born of a new 
world-view," you say, and I say it sure doesn't seem that way.

(I wrote earlier:
Chris -- The questions below feel bogus. It's not wondrous that perspective
should have been devised at a time when there were "no scientists".
Technologies can be developed discretely. Certainly the accomplishments in
architecture, nautical crafts, aqueducts etc in "ancient" times all 
required
what
we'd be content to call "science" -- in the sense of systematic "knowing"
accrued through seeing what works and what doesn't.

And the notion that "professors" no longer "profess" is wrong. It suggests
that university teachers no longer do original work and then talk about it,
teach it, in class. But of course they do. This is particularly true in
philosophy. In the twentieth century, from Russell to Wittgenstein, 
Derrida,
Kripke and others, that's exactly what those leading thinkers did.
Wittgenstein
was famous for walking up and down in front of his class "thinking out
loud" as he painfully wrestled with problems.)

Reply via email to