Dear John and colleagues,
[...]
> That
said, I think that the evidence is that we construct our
> understanding
of the world out of materials from both our
> mind and the world, so I
fall into the category that is
> usually called constructive
realist.
It seems to me that this division among mind and world begs the
question about the nature of the constructed world. Is it the result of our
previous constructions (and therefore contingent) or is it transcendental to
these constructions?
It is easier to see that "phlogiston" was never out
there than to make the case for "oxygen". I don't wish to say that "oxygen" is
just a convention, but perhaps it is only the result of a specific codification
of the discourse in chemistry and physics which makes it possible for us (minds)
to reflexively entertain the notion of "oxygen" as part of the organization of
our world. In terms of the divide between nature and culture, "nature" can then
be considered as a previous state of the cultural system of socially constructed
understanding.
In other words, the "mind" or a collective of "minds" are
not the appropriate units of analysis since they only reflect on the
(scientific) discourses which develop at the supra-individual level by
reconstructing the "world".
With best
wishes,
Loet
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, and Simulated
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
