From: Simon Beesley <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Quest.
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:32:10 +0100


Tom,

You wrote:

> I never stated that naturalized epistemology is dominant in epistemology today.
Instead, I was attempting to point out
> one way in which scientific and social scientific thought has influenced philosophy.

Agreed, you didn't. But you did come close to something like an endorsement of it. My
point was that this particular notion is not only wrong, but perniciously so. The problem
with the relation between scientific and social thought and philosophy -- as, in my view,
Bourdieu sees it -- is that philosophy is all too responsive to social and scientific
thought and makes no distinction between bad bogus science and the real thing, being far
too promiscuously ready to provide a rationale for whatever pseudo-scientific thing
happens to be in fashion; viz philosophical support for behaviourism, and lately for
cognitive science (in my view a bogus science due to be superseded perhaps in the not too
distant future).

However, if I have misrepresented your position, apologies. I am just trying to get back
into the right combative mood for profitable list exchanges. If I were an academic and
invited to conferences and the like I might be content to treat lists like this as "a way
of generating informal and free information sharing" but I am not and have in any case
never found much value in the Laodicean approach.

Regards
Simon






**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu