Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>
>
> NC on Rationality/Science -
[clip]
> call the amalgam "rational
> inquiry," for brevity. I read the papers hoping for
> some enlightenment on the matter, but, to quote one
> contributor, "my eyes glaze over and thanks, but I
> just don't want to participate."[clip]
> Many interesting questions have been raised about
> rational inquiry.
What about "systematic inquiry"? Are there not connections among our various ideas? Don't we want at least minimal coherence? And does not Chomsky in all his books in fact strive for such coherence? Doesn't he regularly try to connect one "fact" to another?
And as soon as you affirm that Fact A links to Fact B, you are affirming (whether you like it or not) a _principle_ in terms of which Fact A & Fact B link. And as soon as you assert a principle, whether you like it or not, you are asserting all the other principles which that principle generates, unless you elaborate a set of reasons for _not_ extending the principle to those other related principles.
Every important marxist, beginning with marx, has in one way or the other emphasized that whenever one acts, one acts according to some principle, and the only question is whether one consciously adheres to that principle (thus making correction possible) or unconsciously adheres to it, thus making correcton (criticism) impossible.
Finally, the _only_ connection between present and future is theory -- and to reject theory is to reject the possibility of purposeful action.
Carrol