Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:35:52 +0200
Subject: BHA: Re: Ditch object, subject and socail action(know-how)-regresion of 


Vunch !

You make quite important points however making counter arguments will be futile as
far as I’m concerned, a reason why I am forwarding the same to the Bhaskarian list
where you can subscribe and meet more kind people, well versed into these ideas. I
hope that way we can even solve a judgmental relativism, which might be generated,
if I am to reply at this moment.

special regards,

Bwanika

ps:
To subscribe BHASKAR, send the following command as an e-mail message:
subscribe bhaskar
to the e-mail address:
majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu





Vunch-AT-aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/13/00 9:15:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Daniel.Bwanika writes:
>
> > Why is science or scientific research done at all? Is it for it's practical
> >  consequences i.e. problem solving etc? Holme and Solvang (1986) 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.
> >
>
> Inquiry that does not understand the dialectical relationship between the
> subjective and the objective will always end up with a biased "objective"
> view.  That the interests of individual scientists or corporations and
> states, is not influencing any experimental result or inquiry is a gross
> mistake.
>
> >  There is a problem with this statement and its object-subject relationship,
> >  which takes us back to object and subject dualism which explanatory theory
> >  is trying to solve. Doing science is not like hunting or falling love that
> >  one has to be fully involved.
> >
> The relationship of the subject and the object is not a duality nor a
> parallelism. It is a dialectical relationship and by that I mean it is an
> argumentative form.  They are in tension.  Sciencing is really a matter of
> discovery which may arise during the procedural method.  It just seemed to me
> that so is hunting and falling!
>
> >  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.
> >  Strictly 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. Objects of science as
> >  people's actions or activities, have given degrees of abilities or
> >  potentials, which can be acted upon differently in differing environments.
>
> Action upon action, like action on objects, quite often differs in different
> environments, but it also is quite often similar in different environments.
> If we hypothesize  that similar neurological states cause or lead to similar
> behavioral routines and patterns, then we need to look for the influences
> upon neurological states.
>
> >  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 the material social processes.
>
> By material social processes, I understand you to mean the activity of making
> meanings in social interaction where all topics are open for discussion
> without coercion or domination.  Where the validity of statements is
> challengable within an understood social structure where giving reasons is
> expected and proffered.
>
> >  History is polyvalence are social activities.
>
> We do not epxect to find one meaning for each word or gesture.
> A mature self-understanding takes multiple perspectives of a changing social
> environment.
>
> >  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.
>
> Objects are not simply empirical; objects are at the same time social and
> historical.
> Analysis does not end with the categorization of any object.
>
> >  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.
>
> Knowledge is generated by the practice of science.  The organizing of
> information, data, does generate knowledge.
>
> >  A psychologist does not create meaning, as a fictional novelist but rather
> >  put together split and deformed experiences of the objects 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.
>
> Isn't the puytting together of ideas about objects as synthesis, a making of
> meanings?
>
>    Since are no historical conditions in which biological development is not
> influenced by the environment, this is a mute point. The issue is not
> necessarily how social structures change, but why there are social structures
>  and how they are enforced!
>
> >  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.
>
> But, there is an effect of the scientist's influence upon the object.  In
> many cases, the scientist puts much effort into preparing the object for
> scientific analysis.
>
> >  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 give state that to say the are
> >  spatio-temporally .
> >
> Whether or not the objects are spatio-temporal or causal effects, the objects
> are the effects of the structure.
>
> >  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
> >  know-how of life and the technology of social being.
>
> The connection between scientific theories and social practices does involve
> moral judgements.  But, why limit the concept of technology to practices.
> The technology is also a thing which is abstracted into a social practice.
> The technical know-how is the making of things, the practical know-how is
> using the thing and involves both prescriptive and moral judgement.  Our
> consciousness is able to abstract from the thing new social practices,
> tactics for example, which may increase the user's power.
>
> Vunch
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---