> Paul writes to Mom:
>
> >Well, Kelly, here I really *WAS* responding to you as a text. What you
> >wrote is VERY far afield from how James would respond. Perhaps our
> >difference is this: I'm responding from a philosophy-of-science
> >perspective, and you're responding from a
> >trench-warfare-in-the-social-sciences persepctive.
>
> so paul, james fully defines pragmatism?
No, but he's a damn fine place to start. I'm after the same big-picture critique he offers, which adds to his historical importance.
> dewey, royce, buchler, rorty, peiece, quine, mead, putnam.
You don't really want to hear me on all the above, now do you? Suffice it to say not all the above represent pragmatism. One case in point: Quine's arguments are more a travesty of pragmatism than an example. Typical example: He argues there's no difference between mathematical physics and pure math, completely ignoring the utterly different pragmatic projects they grow out of, as well as the ways one would go about testing a claim.
> oh minor point, but i think that there are
> some subtle differences that could be explored--though i'm certainly not
> prepared or even willing to do so here. for now.
???
> >It's a sad fact that positivist philosophy is quite influential as an
> >ideology, and leads to people claiming they are doing "positivist
> >science". This is a form of mystification. What they are doing is
> >science, period, to the extent that it works. A major use of the
> >"positivist" label historically has been to discredit those who aren't
> >doing what's labelled "positivist". This often involves a fetishization
> >of "hard" results, as if being able to measure something was more
> >important than how important it is. A pragmatist approach always asks
> >"for what purpose?" kinds of questions.
>
> well i don't disagree with you entirely--at least about the normative
> thrust of your argument. but, it's not true that positivism is only used
> by those who oppose it.
Hey, I never said that! In fact I said almost EXACTLY the opposite:
> >A major use of the
> >"positivist" label historically has been to discredit those who aren't
> >doing what's labelled "positivist".
Please, Kelly, you're usually such a careful reader. (Source of the original DEVO quote)
> firstly, it was happily and excitedly defined by Comte in
> a fit of Enlightenment enthusiasm in the 1830s. yes, it is
> a term that is used in confused and contradictory ways.
Yup! It's a long, long ways from Comte to Mach to the Vienna Circle to Popper's Posse to now. Just one long Max Sennet movie, if you ask me.
> secondly, i don't think it wise to just say 'science' period.
Depends on the context.
> science means something, it bequeaths privileges to those
> who say they do it, and it is often used by some to suggest
> that they aren't doing science but are, instead, doing
> journalism, cultural critique, philosophy, fiction, autobiography,
> literary or film criticism, or politics. in other words,
> there are claims made here about the character of knowledge,
> truth, objectivity, politics, evidence, and the role of science
> and scientists.
You clear your throat much better than most people talk, K.
> yes, maybe pragmatism a la james has the answers. but it seems
> silly to simply assert "this is what science is" without
> recognizing what actually goes on.
Um, but that was very much what James was saying -- that science is what scientists actually do that works, and that that is very much rooted in common sense, rather than being something magically more or different. He was a great demystifier.
> look, it's not much different when folks criticize you for
> wanting to analyze the popular media. they object by saying,
> this is the way it should be. you respond by saying, but this
> is what we have to work with here and now.
Yes, but here's the rub: self-described "positivist" scientists are self-deceived about the philosophic basis that undergirds their work. To the extent it's really valid, is so for pragmatist reasons, not for positivist ones. This is so because of what the two competing theories claim.
> >Yes, hard data is nice.
>
> ummm well i hope you're using this on purpose to provoke me. but i'll
> pretend it's an accident, a slip and ask: what the hell's going on with
> the use of 'hard' data? as opposed to what Paul, soft data? why is one
> hard and the other soft? what makes it so? what does it mean to say that
> data is hard? what gets consigned to being soft? and why?
Since this is part of trope on my part, you are quite literally going off on a tangent.
> > I'd just LOVE to have the kind of detailed LIS
> >statistics we have today for the 19th Century to cram down the throats
> >of all the Arianna Huffington "Effective Compassion" types. By the same
> >logic, it would seem that a time-series like that going back to the
> >1300s would be utterly super.
>
> who cares? do you think Huffington is going to be persuaded?
Not at all. I don't think for a minute tht ANYTHING rational is going to persuade Huffington. She's in show biz. But those whom she might persuade are another matter entirely.
> see, now you're suggesting a very positivist claim: that
> the evidence, just the facts ma'am, is enough to adjudicate
> ethicial-political differences.
If you're going to put things in my mouth, Kelly, PLEASE don't make them words!
Of course facts aren't enough to adjudicate anything. But they sure are nice to have. That's what this whole passage was saying: I got nothing against hard data, it's fun to use against pompous know-nothings.
> nonsense. in another post i'll expand on what i mean by positivism and how
> it is conventionally used.
Please do!
> >Language is a system of communication. SOME of what is communicated is
> >representational. Some is not. Language does not arise out of
> >reflecting the world, it arises out of multiple purposes.
>
> multiple purposes? are you being mysterious or vague? both?
You are asking me questions. This is one of the multiple purposes. Others are left to the reader as an exercise. That was a (very weak) joke. That's another of the multiple purposes. Do I have to spell EVERYTHING out??? How many purposes can you find in the previous sentence? In this one? And this? This? This?
> >Furthermore, "representation" is a misleading way to speak of
> >even these functions, since it is generally abstracted out of
> >what is actually something quite different--purposive action
> >in which representational bits can be found.
>
> Paul, you're going to have to explain this one more concretely.
Ever heard of hunting and gathering? Our language is much more related to such basic activities than it is to the philosophic fantasy of being a mirror of nature.
> >This is a problem in applied math. It's very important re how we learn
> >to use math in the world. But it doesn't respond to my point. 1 + 1 =
> >2, even if 1 cloud plus 1 cloud equals 1 (bigger) cloud or no cloud at
> >all (the bigger cloud rains itself away).
>
> chaos and complexity theory. ooooh now my head hurts cause i dated someone
> who was an economist and into that. he once tried to show me the
> complicated mathematical formulae used to explain something about migrating
> geese and counting the geese and their father and sheesh even something
> about land use impact. heh heh. i needed some tylenol, and not tylenol
> p.m either as i had no problem falling asleep. <snort> NOT one of my
> favorite mistakes, Paul, not at all.
Thank you for sharing, as we say out here in California.
> >And spoil all the fun?
>
> Never!
>
> >BULLSHIT!
>
> *BULLSHIT*
>
> HAH!
>
> >There's nothing in all this AS SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE that supports a
> >positivist account of science rather than a pragmatist one.
>
> Paul, are you talking the context of discovery or context of
> justification? both?
The whole sheebang. Heebang too, for that matter.
> >"actual science is more faithfully described by the multiplicity of
> >styles and approaches that constitute its practice than by its dominant
> >rhetoric or ideology"
> > -- Evelyn Fox Keller, _Reflections on Gender and Science_, p 125.
> >The case for how to conduct research should be made primarily in terms
> >of what you want to learn about. Pragmatism supports a bottom-up
> >approach.
>
> but, but paul, i thought we determined that there are too many bottoms.
> well, least Yoshie did anyway.
(1) "Whip it! Whip it Good!"
(2) Top & bottom for some. Truth & beauty for others.
> more anon,
> kelley
>
> "And all you can do is more heavy revolvers."
Or less light pet sounds.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"