-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jon Johanning Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:10 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk]The Ontology of Two Chairs (was Reich on sex & religion)
On Jan 2, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Etienne wrote:
> That's certainly true. Has anyone ever adopted this 'very silly'
> position? Or is it, in fact, the case that the nebulous 'some
> philosophers' actually means 'no philosophers'?
Yes, especially the "strong program" (or "programme") sociologists of science and the postmodernists. I quote from Curd and Cover's _Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues_, which I cited previously (p. 1308):
"The strong programme is a movement in the sociology of science that professes to make the study of science 'scientific' by tracing the psychological and sociological causes of scientific beliefs and decisions, especially decisions to accept or reject theories. Particularly controversial among philosophers of science is the strong programme's insistence that all scientific beliefs, whether true or false, rational or irrational, should be explained in the same sort of way in terms of social and cultural factors. The phrase 'strong programme' was coined by David Bloor, one of the founders of the Science Studies Unit at Edinburgh University, and many of its proponents are sociologists and historians of science working in the unit."
In other words, they are not actually philosophers, but make claims which are philosophical in nature. What often happens, though, is that when they are strongly pressed by their critics, they retreat to much more non-controversial "weak" versions of their claims. So it's hard to say whether there are by now any frank advocates of the strong versions; frankly, I don't pay much attention to the current state of play in this controversy, so they may be history by now. Postmodernists, though, almost universally adopt this "silly position," or at least it seems so, if one can make any sense of their very opaque language. But as you say, I would consider them "no philosophers."
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
---------------------
And when was the last time you heard of a school of philosophers *describe themselves* as postmodernists holding silly positions?
You read like you're channeling Andre' Kukla. :-)
And don't even get me started on the amenability of the philosophers/no philosophers distinction to sorites paradoxe[s]........:-)
Ian