Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:49:47 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: problematize & ceteralph


First of all:

I was relieved that Ralph's whole post wasn't on my earlier one. Thanks!

Few hasty remarks:

1. I'm not sure whether Hessen is the first connection between marxism and
western history of science. Whole 1920's was quite lively time and there
probably was several kind of connections. But it might be that London
conference you mentioned was first time when English-speaking world of
science studies came into touch with marxism. I don't know. - Sometimes it
seems that for you 'marxism' is only marxism-leninism and world is just
English-speaking world. I don't mind that. Just noticed.

2. I wasn't referring to Marx in relation that internalism-externalism
distinction. Simply used it as convenient tool to distinguish some basic
strategies in (can I say) non-theory-oriented contemporary research.
Besides I think it took quite a lot of intellectual sophistication to take
a step from theory-oriented research to a bit broader view on science.

3. Problem with sociology of science has had 'trejo-effect': they've been
like little doggies in the feet of philosophers of science - 'wuf! gimme
something sweet, master' - instead of really doing the homework as well as
fieldwork despite of what has been said by 'authorities'.

4. I don't have to agree with Habermas. And I think "Knowledge & H.I." is
filled with several misinterpretations - or should I say 'believe' because
it's quite a long time when reading it. That usually happens with those
who write extensive books including nearly everything between heaven and
earth. But that doesn't make Habermas' work trash. He may not have
anything highly relevant to say about philosophy of science but in some
ways he's worth of all publicity that has surrounded him during twenty or
so years. I'd recommend you to consult Tony Smith's "Role of Ethics in
Social Theory" (SUNY Press 1991). Even such a one-way marxist as Smith can
appreciate Habermas' contributions. Despite the fact that Habermas isn't a
'marxist'. (Nor am I, especially after that miserable thing called
"Marxism-list")

5. I didn't understood your Latour-question. Or was it just rhetorical?

Yours, Jukka L



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---