>>Not so much. Let me put it bluntly: if you're not doing research, you
>>do not have a "research programme". You have (at best) some interesting
>>philosophical speculation.
>
>
> This is about the first time I remember disagreeing with Miles. It is
> impossible to search/research without having a question in mind to guide
> the search, but as I've often argued, a blank question is worthless to
> without a preliminary answer, whether that answer is correct, incorrect,
> inspired intuition or wildass crazy, there has to be a question with a
> powerful answer before research can ever begin.
Well, I'll note that we disagreed about pain perception in animals (and quickly move on). I completely agree that philosophical speculation is crucial to the development of research programs. However, if there is no research, it's philosophical speculation, not a research program.
It appears that this is a controversial position. I suspect this hinges on different notions of what "research" is. If a prof does library work, we often say "X is doing some library research". In contrast, scientists often use the term "research" to describe systematic empirical tests of scientific hypotheses. I recognize that both of these are common uses of the term "research". If we use the former meaning of the term "research", I completely agree that people like Chomsky have a research program.
One more point: Chris' claim notwithstanding, anybody who has paid attention to my posts on LBO over the years knows I'm not an empiricist.
I reject the notion that empiricism leads to any true knowledge of things. If you look at the LBO archive, you'll see people accusing me of being a naive idealist (in the philosophical sense). I guess I need to do a better job making my philosophical positions explicit!
Miles