From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 21:49:51 GMT
Glenn,
On criteria:
Matt said:
Their authority extends over their subject matter and they are both in the
service of humanity, and doing a good job, so why put one up on a pedestal?
Glenn said:
This is agreeable as far as it goes, but then we have to ask
what criteria we are using to judge what "doing a good job" is.
You touched on an important criterion when you said:
Matt said:
Physicists work on rocks and their opinions about rocks are basically all
the same and literary critics work on texts and their opinions about rocks
[I did mean "text," thanks for catching that] are basically all different.
Glenn said:
This is a spinned way of saying that science generates knowledge
and literary critics generate opinions. (It simply gives the wrong
impression to reduce "the world is round" and "the heart pumps blood"
(for examples) to opinions.) If your criterion for "doing a good
job" is generating knowledge, then science belongs on the pedestal.
Matt:
As a pragmatist, I don't make the hard, Platonic distinction between
knowledge and opinion. Rather, the distinction between knowledge and
opinion, pragmatists argue, should be thought of as a continuum. Knowledge
is the side where there is a general consensus and opinion is the side
where there isn't. So, yes you are right to say that, by and large,
science generates knowledge (though there is rarely absolute agreement on
all points) and literary critics generate opinions (though there is rarely
absolute disagreement on all points). The criterion for doing a good job
is where I don't agree. I think the criterion for doing a good job should
be placed by each individual discipline. In the humanities, the emphasis
isn't necessarily on consensus. Many times its on proliferation, and in
these cases, doing a good job means reading things in new ways and
generating new opinions. This is why I still resist putting science up on
a pedestal.
Matt said:
What I mean is that, for better or for worse, they [the Quantonics site]
have chosen an
interpretation of Pirsig and have moved on to puzzle-solving. What's
occuring here is more dynamic then that, which would be more analogous to
Kuhn's "revolutionary science." That's all I really meant by it.
Glenn said:
I don't see much discourse at Doug's site. I think it's the royal "they".
It's basically him and his essays and a little correspondence.
Matt:
Ah, see, that's a misunderstanding of what's going on at the Quantonics
site by me. From my very few excusions at the site, I had gathered that
Doug was working with other people. That's my mistake if he isn't. And in
that case, I agree with you, it's not comparable to Kuhnian "normal science."
And yeah, I agree with you on not being able to make sense of the ideas
there. But hey, maybe some insights will appear there. Obviously it would
be pretty hypocritical of me to disregard revolutionary thinking out of
hand (though I have doubts as to how revolutionary it is).
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 09 2003 - 21:46:46 GMT