> > you're still not understanding that it has nothing to do with a seminar.
> > people give reasons in other cultures. Why doesn't it rain? The rain god
> > must be unhappy. How was the earth created... yadda yadda.
>
>Kelley, you are playing with words, equating explanation with giving a
>reason.
i'm not playing with words. you seem ignorant of the terminology. i was explaining what ken meant by "giving reasons". miles interpreted it as eurocentric, etc. perhaps you could play with the word yourself and explain how giving reason is different from explanation. habermas here isn't yet quite interested in the nature of scienctific explanation which he dealt with in his work on the controversies between positivists, interpretivists and critical theorists in his earlier work and which i've outlined here already.
> We are still in the realm of trivial tautology. The attempt to
>explain the world, the necessity to make sense of it (but not
>necessarily rational sense) is part of the source of both ideology and
>science. Communicating such explanations, sharing them, etc. is a quite
>separate process.
as to the ideology and science part: DUH. that's why Habermas is so het up on this project. You need a normative ground in order to distinquish between science and ideology--given the character of contradictions inherent in class society. His is a consensus theory of truth, as opposed to a copy theory of truth (and reality). See also materialist feminist theorits who write about the philosophy of social science, such as Sandra Harding. Same deal with her. See also Bhaskar on this. I know you pay attention to him. He makes the same damn claims.
>Communication or Communicative Action (as Subjects of a scientific
>discipline)
sociologists and anthropologists make their careers out of studying these things. it's what we do. i already know that you think that these endeavors are pointless.
i wrote some other things. please take them into consideration.
kelley