[Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse

[Huw Lloyd]

An overt role of the philosophy is in demarcating the relationship between
theory and facts.  In simplistic theories (and philosophy) where things are
considered separate and distinct from other things, theory is closely
coupled to the "distinct" facts.  In richer theories (and philosophy) where
things are considered related to other things, the theory is less directly
bound to these "distinct" facts.  In the first case there is little
philosophical discussion because it is simple.  In the second case, one
begins to attend to the structure of the theory and its relation to the
structure of the facts, because the structure of the theory begins to take
up a guiding role.

For me, philosophy is not distinct from science. It is all method (*).  But
if one's method is curtailed to cause and effect science, then philosophy
becomes an other, separate and arbitrary thing.  The non-arbitrariness of
philosophy is contingent upon facts about the facts.  If one chooses to
ignore the facts about the facts then one has no basis for discerning a
legitimate philosophy.  Hence the more richly structured one's theory
becomes and the more discerning one becomes in positing facts the more
careful one must be about the structure of one's knowledge, hence the value
in mutual criticism.

Best,
Huw

* e.g see Davydov's & Radzikhovskii's article, "Vygotsky's theory and the
activity oriented approach in psychology". (In Culture, Communication and
Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives).

On 15 September 2014 17:03, Jenna McWilliams <jennamcjenna@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a great cocktail party! Who's hosting it, anyway, and do they mind
> that we trashed the kitchen?
>
> I wanted to weigh in on a side point that Andy made. He wrote:
> By "scientific project" I mean it is part of a larger project called
> "Science."
> It is not up to you or me to define "science", this is a project which has
> been going on for about 400 years in its modern form and more than 2000
> years since it first got started. It has its own system of concepts,
> including its various, contested self-definitions. These are objective,
> inasmuch as your question has to be answered by studying the concepts by
> means of which science organises itself.
>
> I believe it is very much up to you and me to define "science"--to use
> CHAT, concepts of mediation, critical theories, empirically derived
> theories or any other tool at our disposal to challenge science's "own
> system of concepts, including its various, contested self-definitions." In
> fact, many scholars (lots of whom, for reasons that may be important or
> not, are not active members of this listserv) have been contesting the
> larger project called "Science" quite pointedly and effectively for quite a
> long time.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jenna McWilliams
> Learning Sciences Program, University of Colorado
> j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu
>
>
>
>
> David H Kirshner wrote:
>
>> By "scientific project" I mean it is part of a larger project called
>> "Science."
>> It is not up to you or me to define "science", this is a project which
>> has been going on for about 400 years in its modern form and more than 2000
>> years since it first got started. It has its own system of concepts,
>> including its various, contested self-definitions. These are objective,
>> inasmuch as your question has to be answered by studying the concepts by
>> means of which science organises itself.
>>
>