Stefan, all, Thanks for this note of clarification which really does help distinguish the several varieties of constructivism (the three types you outlined) as well as why your initial response was so strong ( [imagine some opining that ] "pragmatism is the american merchants philosophy which is only interested in the cash value of things". Would this not trigger a pawlowian reflex in you? Indeed!) This and your subsequent post on the same topic were quite helpful, and I fully intend to try to eliminate my "knee jerk" reaction to anything which smacks of social constructivism.
What I meant by what is "obvious" as social constructivism was neatly summarized at the conclusion of the substantive part of the post I'm replying to in your saying: When we look at the societal role scientists became as experts since WWII and how scientist function as legitimators of politics with the sword of objectiveness and truth in their hand then critique of science was and is needed.. No doubt. Your clarification was well worth waiting for. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:27 AM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > Dear Gary R., Ben, Gary F. > > sorry for my delayed response. My brain is so slow in thinking in english. > > Gary, yes you are right. There was no resentment (i just used the german > word) in Bens post. It was more a kind of pawlowian reflex on my side. I > have been discusing these things so often with pseudo social > constructivists and with critics of this pseudo social constructivism. I'll > try to explain: > > From my point of view there are three types of constructivism. There is > the radical constructivism in the tradition of Piaget, von Foerster, > Glasersfeld etc., the tradition of Berger and Luckmann with their book "The > Social Construction of Reality" (SCoR) and a pseudo social constructivism > which has its roots in postmodern literature criticism. > > Berger and Luckmanns book gave (as far as i konow) the child its name > "social constructivism" and SCoR is a classic text of the sociology of > knowledge. Therefore social constructivism and sociology of knowledge are > the same for me. Now, within the sociology of knowledge there is the > subbranch "sociology of scientific knowledge" aka science studies. Within > the science studies there is the french part arround Latour and the british > part with Woolgar, Bloor etc. And certainly there is Foucault as a class of > its own. > > As pseudo social constructivism i coin everything influenced by > (literature) theories with the semiology of Saussure in the version of > Bally and Sechehaye under the hood. These ones see all people trapped in a > language cage (Ben mentioned it) which is impossible to escape. The main > difference between the social constructivism and pseudo constructivism is > that the former assumes a kind of relationism like i tried to explain in my > other mail to Ben whereas the latter assumes a strong form of relativism. > > Now, it is not so that in the field of sociology of knowledge something > like Stans position was or is something like common sense. To the contrary > Fleck and Latour are the exceptions who come closest to Stans position. > Positions similar to Stans were and are attributed to science studies > intentionally by "naive realists" who see their power position as > uncritzicable experts in danger and unintentionally by the uninformed who > use the word in its now mainstream usage. The Sokal affair did the rest to > produce a mishmash and also the sociology of scientific knowledge was a > collateral damage of it. > > My problem with the mainstream usage is like "pragmatism is the american > merchants philosophy which is only interested in the cash value of things". > Would this not trigger a pawlowian reflex in you? > > Coming to the "not trying to understand" i think we have to make a > destinction between why people criticize science and what they say to > criticize it. I share most of Bens critique of Stans position and after > Bens last post i also wouldn't say he does not understand the motives. But > i also share the original impetus of postmodern thought and of science > studies against science-as-it-is (but i am not sure if this is also Stans > impetus). When we look at the societal role scientists became as experts > since WWII and how scientist function as legitimators of politics with the > sword of objectiveness and truth in their hand then critique of science was > and is needed. And therefore we shouldn't lump together honest critics and > those who enjoy the meaning-mary-go-round on the academic carnival. > > Thanks for your plea for clarification! > > But what is the obvious, "which has been frequently discussed here and > elsewhere"? > > Best > Stefan > > > Am 23.09.14 22:19, schrieb Gary Richmond: > > Gary F, Stefan, lists, > > Stefan does appear to offer a balanced approach. Still, I have some > questions. > > Firstly, I didn't (and I don't recall Cathy) strongly approving Ben's > post on any other basis than that it argued against, as I put it, "a > constructivist epistemology," something which Stefan argues against as > well. > > And I don't see any "resentiment" in Ben's post in question (I'm not > sure whether or not Stefan is purposefully using Nietzsche's expression in > his post or simply meant "resentment"), but rather a sense that Stan's > stance is indeed a "radical" one, what Stefan termed > "solipcism/relativism/culturalism." Stefan writes that Ben's post (and a > later post) "doesn't try to understand Stans (sic) position", whereas I > think Ben understands it perfectly well and argues against *it *perfectly > well. The present problem is, as Stefan puts it, that "Stan mixes up the > epistemological and the sociological perspective and thinks we can conclude > from the sociology of knowledge to epistemology." > > On the other hand, from Stefan's post it would seem that, even while > some sociologists are moving away from it, certain prominent researchers in > this field have assumed something like Stan's position. My question is: why > continue to conflate *sociology of knowledge *with *social > constructivism *by seemingly assigning what seems to be a rather > excessively large role to the later within the former, for example, > Stefan's writing "social constructivism/sociology of knowledge" (note the > slash, rather than a comma in his writing "From my point of view social > constructivism/ sociology of knowledge and pragmatism are complementary" > )? > > Or, putting it a somewhat differently, what exactly is the extent of the > role of social constructivism in sociology of knowledge if "pragmatism > delivers the right epistemology for the sociology of knowledge," that is, > besides the obvious, which has been frequently discussed here and elsewhere? > > It is possible that these questions may seem naive to Stefan and Stan, > and indeed I have not read deeply in the contemporary literature of the > sociology of knowledge. But I *am *curious, while I think that it would > be helpful to clarify further some of the distinctions implicit and > explicit in the discussions occurring in this thread. > > Best, > > Gary R. > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > >> 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 .
