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 --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005