Stefan, I think you have a well-balanced position here, and I’m copying your post to the biosemiotics list, because I think it contributes a lot to a discussion that’s been going round and round on the biosemiotics list for years. The same goes for Ben’s contributions, but he’s already posted them on the biosemiotics list. (One of them included your post that I’m copying here, but some might have missed it.)
Your concluding point, about pragmatism, is especially important. Taking Stan’s snake example, if two cultures construct different “mythologies” around the snake, but the difference makes no difference to their habitual interactions with that snake on either side, then from a pragmatic point of view, there is no difference in meaning between the two “mythologies”. And yes, pragmatism delivers the right epistemology for the sociology of knowledge, i.e. for inquiry into the subject (as opposed to construction of competing mythologies about it), because it is the right “epistemology” for inquiry in general. gary f. From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] Sent: 23-Sep-14 5:21 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions, Gary F., Ben, List, yes, it is an extremist position. Ludwik Fleck in some of his texts about the Denkkollektive (thought collectives) comes close to this point. But his microbiological bench research maybe prevented him to fall prey to such solipcism. Also Latours (maybe polemic) can be read this way, but even he says now, facing the threat of climate change deniers, that he has gone to far. Apart from these two (and alleged epigones of social constructivism of different strives) i would say this is a crude misrepresentation of social constructivism. Yes, you may be right that you and Ben are just responding, but i have the imression that Stans polarization fell on just too fertile ground. Maybe it activated an already existent resentiment?! Now when Gary and Cathy applaud Bens post, i would follow them if it was not under the label of social constructivism. If we call it solipcism/relativism/culturalism i'd be fine. Nevertheless i feel uncomfortable with Bens post since it doesn't try to understand Stans position. Stan braught up the example "one must not tease certain snakes". If you tease the snake, it bites you, injects enough poison and there are no lucky circumstances that safe you, then you will die! These are the plain facts. But there can be different mythologies/theories arround this snake type. At this point i always remember the end of Ecos "Name of the Rose" when Adson and William discuss retrospective what has happend. Adson says to William: "Over the whole investigation we had the false premisses and the false hypothesis' but we came up with the right conclusion". Important in this example is now that they start with predjudice which turns out to be false. In the same manner scientists start with personaly, socially or tradionally conditioned predjudices. All scientific theories have a social import which is not forced upon us by reality. E.g. Fleck shows in his book that until the 20th century and the discovery of the Wassermann-reaction the syphillis research was influenced by the religious idea of the syphillitic blood as a punishment of god. In an enlightment perspective it is important to understand and explore such imports. Ben argues in his response only from an epistemological standpoint and ignores the importance of the sociologcal view Stan brings in. Sociologically the "claim of truth" as "truth" and the will to act upon this truth is a interesting phenomenon. At the same time Stan mixes up the epistemological and the sociological perspective and thinks we can conclude from the sociology of knowledge to epistemology. Once again, i do follow Bens critique, but it should also pick up the sociological perspective. Science is not only brought forward by empirical research and new theories, it is also brought forward by the critique of its own social boundedness. Sure, the sociological is from a different sphere but since it is from a different sphere it could and should inform science. From my point of view social constructivism/ sociology of knowledge and pragmatism are complementary, means pragmatism delivers the right epistemology for the sociology of knowledge. Best Stefan
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
