Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:58:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: paralogy > Lois wrote: > One might ask, "How can paralogy legitimate?" Just as science never > presents a conclusion that is beyond falsifiction, so paralogy does > not require access to apodictic truth in order to > legitimate. The legitimation is a judgment that the move > is proper within the language game. And within the > language game of paralogy, which is our postmodern > conversation, what is legitimate is a move that takes the > conversation forward, that presents us with a fertile > perspective, or destabililizes the status quo > taken-for-granted explanation and allows he generation of > new ideas. > > Don smith replies: > Lois, your explanation is very clear but if the rule of parology is that a > move in the game must take the conversation forward and present a fertile > perspective or destabilize the status quo and allow the generation of new > ideas, then why isn't that rule, which is universal to the game of parology, > a metanarrative or at least a part of the old metanarratives? > Don > The only meta- here would be at the level of prescriptive: the rules of paralogy. That doesn't make it a metanarrative, since it has nothing to do with how the game of science is played, for example (or tennis for that matter: playing tennis would be quite different from a paralogical approach to tennis). --mark
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005