Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!pioneer!lamaster
From: lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Knowledge and the social sciences
Message-ID: <2198@ames.arpa>
Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 20:15:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.2198
Posted: Thu Jul  2 20:15:17 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 08:44:19 EDT
References: <3587e521.44e6@apollo.uucp> <680@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> <2218@mmintl.UUCP> <681@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 68

In article <681@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> carnes@gargoyle.uchicago.edu.UUCP
(Richard Carnes) quotes Roger Trigg:

>Taylor's statement suggests the social nature of knowledge and some
>ideas advanced by Wittgenstein in the _PI_.  In _Understanding Social
>Science_ (1985), Roger Trigg writes of

>
>  "...the increasing emphasis on the *social* character of knowledge in
>  general, and science in particular.  The very fact that science has
>  been seen as a social institution, in which the notion of objectivity
>  is determined by the structure of the institution, means that it is a
>  fit object of study for the social scientist.  It is in this context
>  that the attacks on empiricism have been so important.  If knowledge
>  was obtained through the senses, it was clearly an individual matter.
>  Each person could obtain knowledge in isolation.  If, on the other
>  hand, it is a product of a community, it is by definition attainable
>  only through education in the ways of that community.  Similarly,
>  empiricism seemed to suggest that knowledge came in bits and pieces.
>  Its approach was atomistic, in contrast to the view of knowledge
>  which suggests that it is deeply embedded in the way of life of which
>  it is a part.  Thus particular strands cannot be torn away from the
>  wider whole. ...
>  
>  "Wittgenstein provides an example of this kind of philosophical
>  approach, at least in his later work.  He emphasized the

From the format of the posting, it was not clear whether the poster agrees
with or disagrees with Trigg, nor was it clear whether Trigg was arguing in
favor of Wittgenstein's (and others) view or was merely representing them.
But in any case, the quotation provides a clear summation of some very muddy
thinking.  

Science could be thought of as a "cult", in the sense of shared values and
ideas which are passed on to others.

Scientists, being people, can also be the subject of sociological study and
interpretation.

Nevertheless, this is no way validates the kind of philosophical relativism
that was quoted.  

Science rests on a ultimate foundation:  That there is an objective reality of
which we are a part, and that we can understand part of that reality through
the scientific method.  No consideration of political or sociological study of
the community of scientists will reveal whether or not this foundation is
correct.  If it is, it is correct regardless of the current sociopolitical
state of the scientific community.  The beauty of science is that no one has
to accept the authority of Scientists for all of his knowledge of science,
because anyone may verify pieces of it himself.  

Hugh "I refute it thus" LaMaster






  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP {seismo,topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}!
  NASA Ames Research Center                ames!pioneer!lamaster
  Moffett Field, CA 94035    ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa
  Phone:  (415)694-6117      ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov


                 "IBM will have it soon"


(Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility"Ma