Re: Hard Science

Carl,

On what basis can we say that all interpretations are the same? Only by
denying that the world out there confirms or disconfirms our claims about
it. Our hard sensuous bodies make the external world impossible to deny.

I am reminded of something Alan Spector said probably 5 years ago,
something to the effect of: "Yes, you can lie with statistics. But you can
really lie without them."

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN


On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Wayne Austin" <aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
>To: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" <dassbach@mtu.edu>
>Cc: "WSN" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:58 AM
>Subject: Re: Hard Science
>
>
>> All this is important caution. We cannot think past the mind. At the same
>> time, we commit an error if we reduce the world to the mind. The external
>> world, including the social one, makes knowledge possible; it has an
>> objective basis. Interpretations are not necessarily ideological. It
>> depends on the character of the interpetations.
>>
>
>I agree with what you say but disagree with what I believe are its
>implications because you appear to suggest that some "interpretations" are
>"better" than others.  But by what criteria?  I know the Marxist criteria 
>of
>praxis  but, as I tried to point out, I'm no longer sure that is a valid
>criteria because outcomes are themselves subject to interpretation.  On the
>other hand, prediction which seems to demonstrate the veracity of our
>knowledge of the objective social world is impossible except in the most
>rudimentary social situations.
>
>Carl Dassbach
>