On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> This brings us to the nature of behaviorist experiments that Joanna
> mentioned, and for that matter, much what passes for economics nowadays.
> The subject matter and conclusions of behaviorist experiments (or economic
> theory) are so common sense that they border on triviality. You do not need
> a behavioral scientist telling you that dogs learn from experience - every
> kid who had a dog knows that from his/her own experience.
This is a little too dismissive. Behaviorists don't just say "animals learn from experience"; they use research to test specific claims, not all based on "common sense". --E.g., if you're using positive reinforcement, should you provide the reinforcer each time the desired behavior occurs? Every fifth time? Randomly? A kid can't tell you that, because she hasn't done the systematic research.
> Another one is
> to express that knowledge in highly technical and incomprehensible jargon
> that few people have the patience to decipher. Math can be a very useful
> tool in that pursuit.
Yes, math can be used this way; it can also be used in constructive ways that expand our knowledge about a topic and allow meaningful tests of hypotheses.
>
> Another reason is that scientific rituals and jargon is what creates and
> maintains the intellectual commodity producing class. Science becomes what
> scientists do. These "research workers" (as Heidegger dubbed them) need to
> maintain their own class position, status, control of resources etc. which
> would be difficult to maintain if their role was limited simply to finding
> the "truth" and making it available to general public. However, if the goal
So let me get this straight: Heidegger is critiquing scientists for relying on rituals and convoluted jargon to create intellectual commodities? As Kel would say, reflexivity alert!!!!
> To summarize, much of what passes for today's science (or art) is in fact a
> social ritual (a 'sentiment of rationality') performed to maintain the
> social class and status of people who "own" that ritual in one capacity or
> another. This statement is not intended to "deconstruct" science (or art),
> but rather re-affirm its objectivity by weeding out its false (i.e.
> subjective) forms.
Why the dichotomy? Science has multifarious effects: it can at the same time create scientific "professionals" and contribute to the growth of genuine scientific knowledge. (The social ritual is part of the culture of "good", "objective" science, not an aberration.)
Miles