<< evles new book on the Baltimore case got a great review in the current
NYRB. Didn't sound like there was anything Marxist about it, though.
Well, it's ort of subdued. Maybe he was more red before when he wrongf The Physicits and the eugentics book.
>> And
I totally neglected David (?) Noble, whose still putting stuff
out.
But he's a historian of tecnology, not science/
>>When I think Marxist critique of science, I think of the science for
the people/radical science journal folks.
Science for the People, that sort of thing.
> Fuller's an idiot. Longino is not a science critic, any more than Alison
> Wylie,w hose name you leave off the list.
>
>Why do you call Fuller an idiot?
Because I've read his stuff and I am not impressed. I was trained as historian & philosopher of science by Thomas Kuhn, Carl Hempel, Charles Gillespie, Mike Mahoney, Mary Hesse, Gerd Buchdahl, Peter Railton, and Larry Sklar. OK, that's lofty company, and it's unfair to compare Fuller to the best, but his work strikes me as unacceptablt glib, careless, sloppy, imprecise, superfficial, and banal.
>And Longino has published quite alot of
feminist philos. of science which is critical--we might have different
definitions of "science critic."
Longino is a serious philosopher of science who does social epistemology. _She_ fits right in with the crowd I mentioned above. "Science criticism" I take to be the sort of stuff Fuller and other scientific ignoramuses do, slinging blunt and twisted quasi-Quinean arrows at something they know nothing about.
>My list was off the top of my
head--haven't read Wylie, though. Who is she?
Teachesa t Western Ontario, speciality is philosophy of archaeology, oddly enoughly. sharp as as needle. Also good: Miraim Solomon, at Temple (is she's still there).
> --jks (a recovering philosopher of science)
>
>Frances (an aspiring philosopher of science)
My sympathies and good wishes. What program?
==jks