Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:07:31 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: PKF: When Harry Met Sandra


Is postmodernism dangerous to the authority of science? It seems to me
that e.g. Latour, Woolgar and co. (and Garfinkel and co. - cf. my "Its All in
the Day's Work" in R Nola ed., Realism and Relativism in Science) insist
that scientists are competent, accept their judgments of what are facts
and what aren't, but merely reinterpret what it _is_ to be a fact (a social
and political construction of sorts). After a point, a critique can be _so_
radical about an area as a _whole_ that it is unable to make critical
distinctions _within_ that area. I know that these charlies aren't your
common or garden postmodernist, but from what I can gather postmod.s
aren't into making discriminations _within_  purported science; and only
that would question scientists' authority to determine what's factual, true
etc.

It seems to me that Harding's comments on the cultural embeddedness
of claims, that there can be objective claims but not value-neutral ones,
and that a wider picture can generally be drawn if one approaches
things as well from other value-perspectives, are all simply correct.

Why does she need to embrace Harry? Harry started his little empire with
a great deal of radical-sounding fanfare. Now he sounds more cautious.
I suspect this is because he sees the main threat to it as coming from the
hostility of scientists. (That's the trouble with becoming so influential that
people outside your own area read you.) Can't we let him wither on his
chosen vine?

Best Wishes,
	John Fox

School of Philosophy
La Trobe University
Bundoora, Vic 3083
Australia


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