On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:15:32 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >Mike Palij wrote: >> So, who is giving a better accounting of the status of science studies >> and the history of science area: Daston or Ekbia? Frankly, after >> reading the one article by Daston, I have significant doubts that >> science studies or history of science have any relevance to >> psychologists. > >Well, then you may (or may not) be interested in the article about >Titchener that I have forthcoming in the history of science journal, >/Isis/. It takes the recent account of the history objectivity written >by Daston and Peter Galison, and re-examines the course of Titchener's >career -- viz., his insistence that analytic introspection was the only >way forward for scientific psychology. Certain turns of phrase that >Titchener used in defending introspection that seem rather odd or even >laughable to modern ears suddenly begin to make sense in light of >then-current developments in the understanding of objectivity.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying (outside of plugging your article ;-). When Daston describes science studies as not placing any importance to truth either as replicable observation or verifiable statement or proposition (e.g., it rained in NYC this morning) which leads to certain ridiculuous contradictions (e.g., science studies advocates arguing against creationism on the basis of the validity of science while claiming that science has no greater legitimacy that everyday experience), I would think that science studies would appeal to a limited number of people with a very peculiar world view. When Daston claims that history of science types have gone overboard with the use of historical methods and attitude (e.g., a rigorous attempt to avoid "presentism" and to attempt to understand the terms and concept within the historical concept in which they were formulated and used -- a position that I think has much to recommend it), it is unclear to me why Daston thinks this to be a bad thing. Nineteenth century conceptions of "mind" are different from 20th century formulations and there were many different ways even in the 19th century to conceptualize mind. My point is to understand a particular scientific concept or position, one needs to understand who is presenting the concept, how do they define it, and what theoretical framework they are explicitly and implicitly using. In the second half of the 20th century many psychologists accepted the concept of the existence of Short Term Memory (STM) but what this concept meant depended upon whose theoretical formulation one was using: the Atkinson & Shiffrin short-term store, the short-lived memories produced on a levels of processing task, the working memory articulated by Baddeley, or the awareness of what parts of long term memory (LTM) are currently activated and available to consciousness (i.e., STM is actually just the part of LTM we are presently using). Daston's arguments against providing context don't seem to make sense to me but I may be reading her wrong. >As for your disaffection with Daston writing, Mike, it seems to me that >we all (if we fancy ourselves "scholars" rather than just >"psychologists") need to be able to read and appreciate different >"registers" of academic writing. This distinction reminds of something Stephen Prince (author of "The Warrior's Camera: The Cinema of Akira Kurosawa") says on the commentary track to the DVD version of Kurosawa's "Kagemusha" (English title: "Shadow Warrior"). Kagemusha is set in the 16th century in the "period of warring states" before Japan becomes unified under the Tokugawa shogunate. The Takeda clan headed by Shingen Takeda is vying for power among other clans in an attempt to have their clan as the overall shogun of Japan. Now, Kurosawa reportedly was very much devoted to accuracy and historical detail (some rumors say his obsessiveness on these point was one reason why he was fired by 20th Century Fox as the Japanese director for the file "Tora! Tora! Tora!"). After Kurosawa parted ways with his most famous actor, Toshiro Mifune, it was rumored that he complained about Mifune's participation in the TV mini-series "Shogun" because it was so filled with historical inaccuracies. However, in his commentary on "Kagemusha" Stepehn Prince points out that there are "inconsistencies" between the historical details that Kurosawa presents and the verified historical details. Prince handles this by distinguishing between "historical truth" and "poetic truth", that is, the historical details being presented are wrong but they are in service of promoting the story, thus being part of the greater artistic "truth" being told by the story. So, is it just a "register" to say that something is "historical truth" or "poetic truth" (but a historical error or misrepresentation)? Or just a convention of writing when one doesn't one to be clear on the facts or making a beloved figure look bad? >Daston does not write like a psychologist, to be sure. I do a fair amount of reading. She doesn't write like a lot of other people. >But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. >Writing styles in different disciplines have their own histories, and >their own uses. Indeed, film historians and critics like Steven Prince clearly have a certain style of presentation, especially when it comes to a topic that he has a huge personal investment in. Circling around the truth might be more "politic" than facing it head on. >Historians are much more likely to circle around a topic >for a little while, exploring its nooks and crannies (perhaps >this is why the book, rather than the journal article, is still >the preferred vehicle of historians and other humanists). Thank you clearing this up for me. I thought going the book publishing route for academics was to avoid having to face peer review prior to publication. As with Herrnstein & Murray's "The Bell Curve", sometimes it's better to just put a book out and deal with the criticism afterwards because it is possible that the prior peer review would point out that the book is a piece of trash, to put it nicely. >By contrast, experimental psychologists (eager to sound >like what they fancy physicists sound like) like to quickly >declare they have found the essence of a phenomenon, and >then just as quickly move on to other matters (all too >often having left most of the interesting subtleties behind for future >researchers to stumble upon). Perhaps, but it may also because they are following certain conventions in writing. I return to George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" in an attempt to remind myself in that I should write plainly, cleanly, consisely, and precisesly, especially when dealing with factual matters. I appreciate what Chris is trying to say and perhaps his point is mostly clearly shown in Endel Tulving's "Elements of Episodic Memory" where the text is in two different fonts: one font represents text is consistent with the traditional concerns of the empirical research article (as described by Chris above) and the other font represents text that reveals Tulving's speculations, inner thoughts, and "circling around issues". Perhaps the success of this form of presentation can be seen in how frequently it has been used subsequently. >It is true that the historian's >meanderings can be frustrating if one is not really interested in the >subject, or doesn't know enough about it to pick up the allusions, and >is just hoping to quickly scan it for "essential" tidbits. Ah yes, if one have to ask why a joke is funny, don't ask. Clearly one don't have the prerequisite knowledge to appreciate the joke, so clearly the joke was not meant for you but only those who are knowledgeable enough, "hip" enough, or "whatever enough" to get it. By the way, three quantum physicists walk into a bar... >By the same >token, psychologists' writing can seem to outsiders like a headlong run >to the all-important p-value, rather than being aimed at attaining >actual knowledge of the matter at hand. Even for articles in the American Psychologist, Psychological Review, Psychological Bulletin, and all the other psychological journals that provide review articles, theoretical articles, or other forms of non-empirical research articles? Still a headlong run to the p-value? >I'm am sometimes put in mind of >cartoonish, pith-helmeted Victorians marching along the Nile pointing >here and there with their walking sticks and declaring "Pyramid!" >"Sphinx!" "Temple!" and at the end of the walk thinking they have "done" >Egypt. We all have our foibles. Indeed we do regardless of whether we're aware of them or not. By the way, thanks for comments about the history of science studies and its relationship to the study of psychology. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
