>
>Justin's approach takes as its starting point the mutual alienation of
>man from man. The question for him is why does he believe what
>scientists say, not what is the source of the knowledge. Why we believe
>scientists is a secondary question of psychology. What is the source of
>scientific knowledge is what is at issue. The source of scientific
>knowledge is its object, nature.
>
>
Well, as a Quinean, putting on that hat, I am skeptical of a sharp devide between epistemology and the social psychology of science. How attention to how scientists form beliefs they believe to be reliable reflects the alienation if man from man, I don't understand. I would say that nature the object rather than the source of scientific knowledge; it is also in part the cause of that knowledge--only in part, because our practical activities interacting with nature are also part of the cause of that knowledge, as well as our interpretive and analytical activities that assess and theorize about the results of those interactions. --jks _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com