>> "Information about lawlike connections sets off a
>> process of reflection in the consciousness of those
>> whom the laws are about. Thus the level of unreflected
>> consciousness, which is one of the initial conditions
>> of such laws, can be transformed. Of course...a critically
>> mediated knowledge of laws cannot through
>> reflection alone render a law itself inoperative,
>> but it can render it inapplicable." (Jurgen Habermas,
>> KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN INTEREST, Beacon Press, Boston, 1971, p. 310)
Jay Hanson wrote:
> This is not science.
Huh? What's so *un*-scientific about the observation that social
scientific "laws" can be true at one time and false at another (later)
time *just because* the knowledge of them renders them "inapplicable".
Possible Examples: theories of suicide before and after the "cry for
help" theory was well publicised; theories of war before and after
Frederic of Prussia; economics before and after Keynes.
Isn't it scientifically true that announced expectations about us and our
behaviour can lead us to change our behaviour and thus falsify the
expectations (either quite consciously and purposefully or less
reflectively)?? (I take it this is what Habermas is talking about.)
--
Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520
CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464
