On Jun 10, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Jim Clark wrote:
Hi
As one of the promoters of antiscientific views, I think Rorty,
among many others, certainly had negative influence, both direct
and indirect, on efforts to promote the human or social sciences,
including psychology. Here's an excerpt from the obituary Chris
linked us to.
"His work redefined knowledge 'as a matter of conversation and of
social practice, rather than as an attempt to mirror nature' and
thus redefined philosophy itself as an unending, democratically
disciplined, social and cultural activity of inquiry, reflection,
and exchange, rather than an activity governed and validated by the
concept of objective, extramental [sic] truth."
While I am no supporter of all of Rotry's positions, I think the
notion that he was anti-scientific goes too far. Note two points in
the above quotation: (1) It is about 'knowledge' and not only one
kind of knowledge namely science; (2) with regard to 'objective,
experimental truth' Rorty's point was that [all] knowledge cannot
and should not exclusively be governed and validated by scientific
truth.
I do not want to extend this topic, important though it is; so, let
me end with the following observation. If it were possible to
measure the totality of knowledge held by any member of this list, it
would be found that for each of us 'scientific' knowledge constitutes
the small portion of the totality; the rest would be such things as
father's, mother's and sibling's names, where you live and what is
your income, how to eat with a knife and fork, who are your friends,
what they are like, etc., etc., etc. and so, endlessly.
Peter
Peter Harzem, B.Sc.(Lond.), Ph.D.(Wales)
Hudson Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849-5214
USA
Phone: +334 844-6482
Fax: +334 844-4447
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
