Hi Rather than "nothing," what Jim saw was the following passage in a review (described by Chris as "a fine review") of the book on objectivity.
"It makes a persuasive case that the modern notion of objectivity emerged only in the mid-19th century. It was then that objectivity prevailed as what the authors call an "epistemic virtue"*that is to say, a moral attribute of the people who were recognized as makers of knowledge." Now this is either an accurate characterization of a claim in the book or not ... but that is irrelevant to the claim being asserted. All I did was express surprise at this claim about objectivity being a mid-19th century phenomenon. To quote myself: "Reading the review, I was struck by the claim that "objectivity" only emerged as a central value for scientists in the mid 19th century. Surely, it has a much older footing in science and empiricism (e.g., Bacon's idols of the mind, the use of observation to test beliefs, ...)." I'm not sure what I have "presumed" here since I just restated the assertion from the review. Nor was it particularly helpful to be told by Chris (who apparently has read the book?) to "Read the book and you might learn something new." That is undoubtedly true of an untold number of books or articles that I might read, and surely goes without saying. Generally I find it more helpful (as well as saving a lot of reading) when people familiar with works that I am unfamiliar with give some idea of the argument the authors make (i.e., the evidence they present?) rather than telling me to read the source. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I enjoy TIPs so much ... vicarious "reading." Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> "Christopher D. Green" <chri...@yorku.ca> 25-Nov-10 10:28:18 PM >>> Michael Smith wrote: > I think Jim's post highlights some of the problems when talking about > "objective", "evidence", "opinion", etc. > > That is, the reviewer Jan Golinski is simply promoting further > "evidence" for his views while Jim sees through this > with his more "objective" knowledge which presumably puts the lie to Golinski. > Jim saw nothing because he has not read the book. He merely *presumed* because he didnn't like what he thought he might see if he looked. Now *that's* cranky (not to mention subjective). Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6762 or send a blank email to leave-6762-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6767 or send a blank email to leave-6767-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
