[lbo-talk] M. Parenti joins the New Atheists?

[Alan Rudy]

No, it is not unfortunate at all.  What is unfortunate is that the natural
and social sciences are believed to be and taught as if they were two,
discrete - if internally differentiated - intellectual columns rather than
what they are and always have been, intertwined and interchanging efforts to
engage, hypothesize, test and interpret the world we live in.  For that
matter, the humanities need to be tossed into the mix in order to understand
- and in the hopes of generating some social self-reflexivity within the
ranks of - scientists and the ways they operationalize the idea of nature...
hello RG Collingwood, Keith Thomas, Leo Marx, Clarence Glacken, Susan
Griffin, Neil Smith, Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour and beyond (whatever one
thinks of any of these folks in particular).

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> Jim is of course correct on this. But also of course relatively few
> non-biologists make this distinction when they use the word or come
> across it in their reading. It is unfortunate the biologists did no
> select another term.
>
> Carrol
>
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:16 -0500 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> writes:
> > > The concept of "altruism," invented by Comte, is a futile attempt to
> > > resolve the contradiction btween a radically individualist
> > > conception of
> > > humanity on the one hand and the obvious sociality of human history
> > > on
> > > the other hand. (This sociality is older than homo sapiens.)
> >
> > In biological theory, the concept of
> > altruism is given a technical meaning. [CLIP[
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
*********************************************************
Alan P. Rudy
Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
Central Michigan University
124 Anspach Hall
Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
517-881-6319