File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1995/95-04-30.000, message 451


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:46:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Bernard J. Goitein" <bjg-AT-bradley.bradley.edu>
Subject: Re: Marxism as science -Reply


Pete-
You say, "If anything, observation hinders science....?" 
What, then, is the proper role of empirical data for science?  Or do you 
propose reliance on pure reason as a better source of knowledge (sounds like 
my dim memories of Plato)?
Bernie Goitein 

On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Pete Bratsis wrote:

> Sorry, I got cut off.  Continuing - 
> 
> This conception of science is directly opposed to that held by empericists.
> Science is not based on observation.  If anything, observation hinders
> science since it creates this focus on apperences and a fixation with 
> the first experience.  Thus, we will 'abstract' or 'generalize' from 
> this experience so that our particular relation with reality becomes
> what Bachelard would term 'false' science.  (For a brief example 
> see ch. 5 of The Psychoanalysis of Fire, or, read The New Scientific 
> Spirit).  
> 
> At any rate, I am tring to make explict that AM is not necessarily
> more 'scientific' than other Marxisms - although it certainly is more
> empericist than most others.  
> (An excellect examination of the misrepresentations of science 
> through empericism and its negative effects within contemporary political
> theory is John Gunnell's  Between Philosophy and Politics.)
> 
> 
> It is also no less 'bullshit' just because it adopts empericist methods.
> For example, what we could term
> 	I AM HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS  WILL CONTINUE LATER>
> 
> PETER BRATSIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005