File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-07-10.220, message 96


Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Cat


Rahul,
     Well, this is still a murkier business than you let on.
1)  Although generally published papers have more originality
than dissertations, many are still of essentially the same level,
that is a miniscule "advance" if that at all.  Indeed, it is not
a qualitative difference that matters between disses and papers,
but more a quantitative one.  Papers are (usually) short and cut
out a lot of dross and crud adhering to disses.
2)  In history of science one can earn brownie points (as did Kuhn)
by studying long dead scientists.  Indeed, it is out of that field
that much of the discussions and theorizing that has you upset has
emanated.  In that regard again, there is less of a difference 
between the natural and social sciences than you have made out there
to be.  In economics it is in the history of economic thought where
one finds a lot of such discussions, including methodological ones,
and including ones of Marx and Marxism and Marxian economics (not
all necessarily identical).  But, I certainly agree that as one moves
>from hard hard natural sciences towards the humanities one can publish
more readily the sorts of things that you have described.
3)  Although it may be silly and offensive, sticking  a crucifix in a
bottle of urine and photographing it was certainly not an obvious thing
to do and took some creativity or at least original thought, more I 
would contend than goes into many, if not all, hard scientific papers.
That that particular photo had such an impact, even if mostly to serve
reactionary interests attacking arts funding, shows that there was 
something to it.
Barkley Rosser


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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005