Hi
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Paul C. Smith wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
> > I have read with great interest the various postings related to
> > the possible Eurocentric nature of our beliefs about punishment
> > because I have been reading about culture and epistemology for
> > the past year or so. In fact Michael Sylvester's position is one
> > that I think we will have to deal with more and more in coming
> > years. That is, people will be challenging not only our findings
> > but also our ways of finding out (i.e., the natural science
> > approach).
> This is nothing more than a "sense" that I have, but my
> feeling is that this problem has already peaked, and is
> beginning to disappear. Of course, my sense of the peak
> corresponds with the publication of the Gross and Levitt book
> ("Higher Superstition", 1993, if I remember correctly), and so
> may be nothing more than my reaction to that book. But notice
> that the major works are dated - Harding's piece is from 1986,
> and the Rorty book (Contingency, Irony and Solidarity) was
> published in 1989.
I wish that I could agree with Paul, but I don't think so. The
still-unread Harding book on science and culture is 1999, I
believe. The post-colonial psychology of Duran and Duran was
recent. Noertge and another co-editor have a recent book with
some articles questioning the issues raised. I think that the
"indigenous science" or "indigenous ways of knowing" movement is
just getting started.
There are other "threads" that are also converging with these
critiques and that may give them some persisting influence. I
have in mind such things as the seeming-increase in acceptance of
spiritual matters in psychology and excessive stretching of what
counts as research (e.g., publication of a book on Transpersonal
Research Methods by Sage).
Furthermore, the mainstream media (e.g.,
> NYTimes) publish far more criticism of the
> postmodernist/feminist/multiculturalist "critiques" of science
> than they do the critiques themselves. The academic journals
> have an even balance at worst. And the Alan Sokal parody, which
> surely devastated the postmodernist position was widely
> reported in the popular media, forcing the journal editors to
> publish their desperate defense ("Science Wars").
We need far more people doing the kinds of things that Gross,
Levitt, Sokal, and others have done. I suspect that the
"devastation" by Sokal may be more our perception than that of
those in the area of science studies, at least judging by
postings on alt.postmodernism, the book "Science Wars" (you
mentioned), and the like.
> Sure there are more recent books still claiming that
> science is somehow merely a social construction. But I'll bet
> that if we heard from the mainstream publishers' developmental
> editors, we'd hear that such books are a pretty hard sell these
> days. I suspect that they're widely recognized as tired
> arguments that failed to stand up to the light of day, except
> by the inevitable isolated few (the academic equivalent of the
> fabled Japanese soldiers holed up alone on their islands,
> unaware that the war was over years ago). :)
Here's wishing it were so. But to continue your analogy, let's
hope you aren't Neville Chamberlain returning from talks with
Hitler and announcing "Peace in our time" (or whatever he
reported) just before WW II broke out.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
