Try thinking of 'post-scientific' this way: Quantum physics and Relativity are post-Newtonian. The spherical earth and Copernican solar system are post-Ptolemaic.
What is important is that the previous theory is 'technically' false (viz not objectively true; incomplete) and that the superseding theory is able to explain the limited success of the earlier theory; (viz we are small observers on a giant sphere). Bohr et al. and those who accept the irreconcilable difference between particle and wave phenomena (viz Newton and Maxwell research programs) note that with these two highly successful programs we now seem to have oxymoronically – two objectivities. It is this 'situation' – two successful yet inherently incompatible mechanics – that forces the conclusion that whenever we observe we are necessarily making a CHOICE – a free choice that by the very nature of the 'situation' can't be predicted or explained in terms of a mechanical cause. You may be aware that James argues that the beginning of pragmatism – the hard core of the pragmatist research program – is that we have free choice. It remains to clarify precisely what this means. At the very least it means that we have an inherent 'problem' at every moment – free choice. The choice can be thought of as 'how to observe' or as 'what to believe'. The pragmatic interpretation (Peirce, James, Dewey) is that the choice/problem is best understand as 'how to live'. Science in the traditional mechanical sense must be a limited way to understand the universe if free choice is real. The limit appears in teh modern scientific tradition (mechanics) unexpectedly as the demonstration of two (or more) irreconcilable and highly successful research programs. The call for a More General Theory is the call for a post-mechanical – post-one-universal-mechanical theory. This is easily understood as post-scientific if you accept that science is defined by the Scientific Hypothesis – that all phenomena in the universe are governed by One universal ( = time-space invariant) order. I suggest to you that the More General Theory – the post-scientific theory – is pragmatism. Knowledge – meaningful knowledge – is always potentially 'useful.' This can only make sense in a context where we have the ability to problem solve. Mechanical sciences discover knowledge that serves the problem of deciding how we should live. Crystal clear? Please critique. yours, Terry ==================================== On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Peter Brawley wrote: I understand Kuhn's distinction between normal & paradigm-shift science, but the concept of "post-science" mystifies me as much as the concept of an "end of history". Isn't post-science more a pomo elaboration of Kuhn? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
