Science vs. Ideology (was Re: foucault? relativist? ROTFL!)

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

I ask the question because no one on this planet has answered it
satisfactorily, yet.  Way too much of what passes for argumentation in
social science/philosophy is king of the hill-I want the last word bullshit.
Can you explain why the world can contain Godelian reasoners?  I'd love to
hear it. Fuck decorum; as Ernest Hemingway said "show me one infallible
truth, just one."

Ian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 7:14 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Science vs. Ideology (was Re: foucault? relativist? ROTFL!)
>
>
>
>
> Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
>
> > Yoshie wrote: All truly scientific endeavors
> > contain the kernel of truth beyond ideology
> >
> > What is it about reality, language and mind that "allows" this to be a
> > possibility at all?
> >
> > ian
>
> In the context of this thread, which is about the possibility of making
> positive affirmations of truth, questions rather than propositions seem
> to me lacking in decorum. Answer your own question and see how
> others respond.
>
> A little under 60 years ago there was a bit of filler in the
> Reader's Digest that was of some epistemological interest. The
> writer tells of her son coming into the house and asking her
> where he came from. She replied with a 30 minute discussion
> of reproduction and human sexuality. His response: That's
> interesting, but Sally comes from St. Louis and Jim comes
> from Chicago. Where do *I* come from?
>
> Questions (unless accompanied by *some* sort of answer to
> identify their domain of relevance) are inherently ambiguous
> and obscurantist. In teaching I always insisted that students
> give some answer, even a wholly fake one, before I would
> respond to their questions. It worked usually.
>
> Carrol
>
>