From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:16:52 MST
2002-12-11 17:55:33, Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> wrote:
>But I still think /something/ is
>different in kind about rigorous critical epistemology and ordinary
>human reason, even when the latter is used with care. While I agree
>that identifying that thing, whatever it is, with a particular
>description of "the" scientific method may lead to dangerous
>dogmatism, I still think there's something there, and it's related
>to self-honesty and self-criticism.
Bein aggressive about looking for disproofs of a cherished hypothesis is *very* much a part of the
difference, and a key marker for distinguishing pathological science (and plain ol' jumping at
conclusions) from the better sort.
There are a lot of people with advanced degrees who seem to give lip service. This is natural, it's
*hard* to get good at that kind of intellectual honesty. And even the perfectly honest search for
*worthy* criticism (sadly) tends to eliminate the unschooled and the autodidacts--"have you *read* the
*literature*?"
The question has a point, bt it *is* also used as a club (in both senses). Used badly, it blinds one to
epistemological news-of-difference. I suspect we agree on all of this, I'm just butting in to ask if
anyone besides me thinks Feyerabend was as delightful as Derrida and Lacan are tedious? (Hmm. As worded,
that would include someone who evaluated both functions as zero or negative values. English is a funny
thing.)
MMB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:41 MST