Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:12:00 +0200 From: Bwanika <Daniel.BwanikaH961-AT-stud.oru.se> Subject: BHA: object, subject and socail action(know-how) Colin I'm putting together these thoughts could, you please help read through. Why is science or scientific research done at all? Is it for it's practical consequences i.e. problem solving etc? Holme and Solvang writes that value free and objective social sciences is possible and that knowledge and interest are relational therefore the object of study and the researcher have the same relationship to there environment. There is a problem with this statement and its object relationship, which takes us back to object and subject dualism which explanatory theory is trying to solve. Doing science is not like hunting or faking in love that one has to be fully involved. Philosophical ontologies articulate the specific contents of the world, which are characterised as intransitive objects of specific epistemics of scientific programmes. Notice too that philosophy as any other science branch does not exist independent of the sciences and other social practice forms, which it can arguably be written, is derived from or is about. Scientific ontologies represent the general categorical form (facts) of the world as presupposed by the nature of scientific or other activities. Not how a scientist reason about objects of science. A bad behaved son is not a mere neurological processes a reason why children behaviour in urban centres and rural areas might differ radically. Object of science as people actions, have given degrees of abilities or potentials, which can be acted upon differently in differing environments. It is the cradle of intransitivity and transitivity of objects of knowledge and as such the object and subject relationship falls apart and Freudian science can be brought back into material social processes. Even if it is categorically clear that science should be space and time specific, the above statement might lead to scientific objects being reduced not to their emanate effects but to evaluation starting points of a scientist who does this science. It is here the present scientific structures excrete the categorical mistakes or error. An assumption that geometry can exist without geometrical objects. That love can be taught without experiencing it, that trust can exist without practising it. What is meant, is the fact that objects of science have inherent power, the emergent power or causal powers, the generative mechanism to generate knowledge independent of the scientist? A criminologist does not create his or her knowledge but the objects of crime under study generates that knowledge therefore a criminologist (scientist) only organises that knowledge to make it intelligible. A psychologist does not create meaning, as a fictional novelist but rather put together split and deformed experiences of the object under study in order for those experiences to be understood. It is more evident in development psychology, where human behaviour is inherently the same and does not radically change unless they are influenced. We can likewise relate the above statement with present social issues, the development of industrial social structures, their subsequent decline and the behaviour arrays they do generate. There are several issues, which one has to put in mind. For any field of scientific descriptions, explanations and predictions, object of science are not bound to a scientist relationship to the object in reality. Science has social implications for example in social fields but also in the technological field. Depression, stress, crime, abnormal behaviour, magnetism, photosynthesis, chemical reactions are effects of an underlying substructure. It is true that some of these variables are rampant in state. That is how we have to take social practices as technology itself. Technology, the-know-how are not moral judgements but rather genuinely prescriptive, practical and evaluative rational social practices, which do not practically follow empirical statements of fact and scientific theories. Moreover knowing how to go about - social doing is a technical knows how of life and the technology of social being. _____________ Bwanika url: http://www.uganda.co.ug e-mail uhpl-AT-starcom.co.ug Bwanika-AT-telia.com tel: +256 (0) 41- 23 57 98 / 23 59 10 --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005