[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

Charles Brown charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Jan 17 09:09:54 PST 2008


I don't know of any scientists who make this grandiose claim. There are many forms of knowledge that have nothing to do with science (e.g.,

analysis of art and literature). I'm a big fan of the scientific method, but it's important to recognize that there are many domains of

human knowledge where the scientific method is completely irrelevant.

Miles

^^^^^

CB: Maybe. I'm not sure you can foreclose scientific method from being applied to any of the questions you might pose in art or literature. Scientific method can be framed rather generally such that the methods in art and literature are termed scientific in this context.

The basic point is nothing is unknowable in principle. Are you thinking of something in art or literature that is unknowable ? I suppose the goal in some artistic endeavors might be to keep something a mystery, as unknown, so as to have the desired effect on people. But that doesn't make it "unknowable". There can be a sort of willing suspension of knowability so as to get "high", have a thrill, experience awe, return to childhood, whatever.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list