Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:56:02 -0500 From: "Smith, Donald S" <Donald.S.Smith-AT-usa.xerox.com> Subject: RE: second paragraph of the PC intro From: Don Smith, Ed Atkinson wrote: <It (science) then produces a discourse of legitimation with respect to its own status, a discourse called philosophy.> Now this is hard for me, science's narrative is "called philosophy"? Reply: Yes, it is called the philosophy of science. It is an established discipline. For example here's a quote: "The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science encourages the application of philosophical techniques to issues raised by the natural and human sciences. These include general questions of scientific knowledge and objectivity, as well as more particular problems arising within specific disciplines. Topics currently being discussed in the journal include: scientific realism, causation, the logic of natural selection, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the direction of time probability and confirmation." But don't be misled by the words "question, problems or interpretation". They not only discuss the findings of science, they also legitimate the methods and conclusions in a dialectical fashion. (if my assumption of the dialectic bothers anyone forget I said it.) Ed again: > Then he (Lyotard) lists some metanarratives. This part is dear to my heart and I think I may actually catch a glimpse of what he's getting at with "the Enlightenment narrative." This is an assumption grid, an operating envelope of shared ideas, which (I understand) postmodernism recognizes and calls into question. But he loses me a little when he refers to "the creation of wealth" as a "grand narrative." How could that be? How could "the Enlightenment narrative" be put on the same level as "the hermeneutics of meaning?" Seems like there would be a hierarchy of narratives. Reply: The metanarratives aren't hierarchical, they permeate our culture in varying proportions and importance in the legitimizing process. Lyotard listed: The Dialectic of spirit The Hermeneutics of Meaning Emancipation of the Rational The Creation of Wealth These are my interpretations of what Lyotard meant: The dialectic of spirit is the philosophy of Hegel. The hermeneutics of meaning might be the philosophy of Husseral, Heidegger and others. Emancipation of the rational might be Marx or in another sense Rousseau. (forgive these spellings) The creation of wealth is the philosophy of capitalism (although I have never heard it called philosophy, except as implied by Marx who would call it metaphysics. These are all metanarratives that are mostly legitimated through philosophy. <As can be seen from this example, if a metanarrative implying a philosophy of history is used to legitimate knowledge, questions are raised concerning the validity of the institutions governing the social bond: these must be legitimated as well. Thus justice is consigned to the grand narrative in the same way as truth.> Is he saying here that if science works within a narrative in the scientific/academic sphere, then that same narrative must work at all levels of society? Reply: No, I think he is just saying that as the philosophy of science justifies the truth claims of science there are also other metanarratives (and sometimes the same metanarrative) that have formed our understanding of justice and therefore how society functions vis a vis justice. Don Smith
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005