Celsus

Hold on: "Badly tainted... by postmodernism"... Weren't you arguing from antirealist positions with me in the Church and Science thread? Weren't you also happy to take SSK proponents' quotes to further your point? What exactly is this "taint" of postmodernism that you're refering to? Is it only applicable to science and not to history? Eh? (I would argue that postmodern critiques are highly applicable to history while not so clearcut with sciences because of obvious ontological differences) Could you clarify?

Joel

Geoff Hudson

It's called the art of recognising a liar.

Geoff

Bede

Hey Joel, just having my cake and scoffing.

First, you may be confusing my views with Hugo's. We actually agree on very little - I am a realist for instance. Extreme post modern lit-crit is not acceptable in history, science or lit-crit. I actually have very little to do with the SSK crowd and only quoted Shapin because he is explicitly against the conflict hypothesis. But that's not an SSK thing but common ground among historians of science.

Post modernism has done its job by alerting us to the fact that we are agents in the creation of history ourselves. It has made some good points that only make sense as part of the mainstream methodology. But its use as a methodology on its own is like trying to make a fruitcake out of nothing but glace cherries. It does not allow us to throw out everything else as well.

Note, the old positivist view of the history of science is, IMHO, objectively wrong. It is not a 'different view' or a 'particular discourse' but disproved on the basis of solid evidence and consequently untrue. This is not a post modern veiwpoint.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Celsus

Oh. Erm, excuse while I go thrash madly about at something or other... Incidentally, I don't know if you've noticed, but Hugo and I are planning to switch sides for a bit of a laugh this September. Ok, we can return to the topic at hand now... (sorry everyone else!)

Joel