For those who can think beyond the prejudices with which the encrust the
notion of social science, I recommend Michael Agar's new book, *The Lively
Science.
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Lively-Science-Remodeling-Research/dp/1626521026>
*Drawing
on figures as diverse as Brentano, Dilthey, Charles Pierce and Stephen
Toulmin, Agar makes a strong case for reviving the notion of
*Geisteswissenschaft*, while retaining the fundamental requirements of a
science: empirical evidence, systematic search for falsification, and use
of abduction to define a space of possibilities. Induction and deduction
are not rejected, but rather put in place as components of rational
reconstruction. The aim is a science that deals intelligently with subjects
with ideas and feelings of their own, neither reducing them to robots
programmed by social forces, nor drifting off into art where empirical
evidence and systematic falsification cease to be relevant.
The "social science" that Omar and Paul have in mind is, I suspect, the
stuff I was taught in the sixties, during the heyday of logical positivism
and quantitative analysis. Yes, left to its own devices that sort of social
science is monstrous. But that was half a century ago, already decades
after Popper, Grice and Wittgenstein, nearly two centuries after Kant. And
now it's a red herring.
John
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"social science" is an abomination
On May 14, 2015 8:49 PM, "Omar Kusturica" <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Would it be fair to say that you evaded discussion of social sciences
when I tried to bring it up ? If my memory serves.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We could use new members, of course.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Well, I'd hardly think that this is a typical case, I mean we have been
off and on communicating for some 20 years now. If the social
anthropologist must force everything into some crude mould so be it.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:26 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Philosophy hasn't been exhausted. We have. After being on line for as
long as there has been a line to be on, this social anthropologist has
seen
it happen over and over again. A new list/site/forum/whatever begins with
a
burst of excitement as people introduce themselves and start to sort out
where they stand. Then things settle down to predictable tit-for-tat. Most
folk drift away. Only the hard core are left at the bar. The hour is late,
the air is stale, it's time for the last round. This process is
predictable-regardless of subject matter. The only examples where it
doesn't happen are a few group blogs where the founders make it their
responsibility to continually add new material and actively invite new
voices to join the conversation. In my field, anthropology, the exemplary
case is Savage Minds (http://savageminds.org). Even though some of
the founders have drifted away, a strong core remains and is periodically
refreshed through a process of using invited blog posts as a try-out for
joining the core.
Gossip? What about? David's chickens are a great topic, but, let's
face it, he has all the poop.
John
Sent from my iPad
On 2015/05/15, at 5:27, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
village, the peaceful village, the lion sleeps tonight. Hush, my darling,
In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight, near the
don't cry, my darling, the lion sleeps tonight.
answered. All problems solved. A doubts decided. We thank God for that.
So it's my guess that philosophy has been exhausted. All questions
Now we can get on with gossip.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html