On Jun 10, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Jim Clark wrote:
It has been a few years since reading Rorty, but my recollection
(perhaps wrong) was that his statement about knowledge being
conversation applied to all knowledge, which would deny access to
objective truth even by scientific approaches. Hence my choice of
the term "anti-science."
This opens up the other hornet's nest concerning objective truth,
even if we agreed as to 'truth'. (Is my father's name objective
truth--if so why?- and are the names of my grandfather's and great-
grandfather's names? They both died very young, and even my father
did not personally know them.)
So was Rorty claiming that these kinds of knowledge were not based
on objective truths? That is, it is debatable whether my father's
name was James Harold Clark and that my mother's maiden name was
Florence Brittain. I thought Rorty was emphasizing more
deliberative types of knowledge of interest to psychologists and
other academics.
I think he would probably say such assertions do not universally
apply to all of 'these kinds of knowledge.
I think the issue is important and relevant to 'psychologists and
other academics', notwithstanding the mundane examples I
(deliberately) chose. Of course, understandably, the busy
psychologist (and who isn't?) may be unable to give time to such
matters, but I do think some should to have the skills to sort out
some of the more egregious conceptual muddles that occur, especially
in theoretical discussions.
As you, Jim, I too do not wish to extend this and in the process
clutter TIPS. However, since I wrote twice and you once, very
briefly, please feel free to write again and I will not reply (or if
I feel compelled, I will reply just to you, off-list.
Greetings,
Peter
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
