Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> At 11:48 AM 5/30/2008, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> >basically I
> >look at the proliferation of the application of the word "theory" as simply
> >a way to sell observations, systems, methodologies by assuming the patina of
> >"science."
>
> I'm not sure this is even wrong. Critical theory distinguished
> itself in the first place through critique of scientific positivism.
I'm not sure what the "this" of "this is even wrong" is pointing to. What is not wrong?
I think expansion would be useful here. From the time that (physical and biological) science got named "science" as a distinct form of knowledge a major concern of many thinkers has been to establish the scope and limits of that particular knowledge and relate it to different forms of knowledge, of differing scope and limits. My latching on to a distinction between thought and theory belongs to this tradition. I think everyone involved in this discussion does agree, in general, that science (in some more or less strict sense) is not and cannot be the only or even the most important form of human knowledge. Are we agreed that the conversation over these distinctions is a useful conversation?
Carrol