[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students?

Fri Nov 2 09:32:55 PDT 2018

Thanks so much Martin, this clarified a lot! And I just realized why I did
not get Ontology, I was understanding Epistemology as Ontology, so...
Thank you very much!

Wagner

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:29 PM Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:

> Okay, so now we need recommendations for a good introductory philosophy
> text!  :)
>
> Epistemology and ontology are certainly interrelated. One could say that
> there is no epistemology without ontology: no knowledge without assumptions
> about the kinds of entity that can be known. Can the properties of
> electrons be known? Can the properties of God be known? Can the properties
> of elves be known? Your answer to each question will depend on your
> assumptions about the existence of the entity involved.
>
> You exist (ontological claim). You also know (epistemological claim) that
> you exist (at least while you are awake) ...
>
> I once put the matter this way: "Epistemology is the systematic
> consideration, in philosophy and elsewhere, of knowing: when knowledge
> is valid, what counts as truth, and so on. Ontology is the consideration of
> being: what is, what exists, what it means for something—or somebody—to be."
>
> Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist
> theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. *Educational
> Psychologist*, *35*(4), 227-241.
>
> <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Martin,
>
> I struggle not of accepting the idea of ontology, but the concept itself.
> Is it a "way to exist"? But to acknowledge that we exist, or the way we
> exist, isn't also "to know"? Isn't this the base of the "cogito, ergo sum",
> I think therefore I exist? So what is the difference between ontology and
> epistemology?
>
> I feel like the "ontology" is kind of related to the German bildung
> tradition, or is this wrong?
>
> Sorry if those sounds like silly questions. I am just beginning my studies
> on philosophy, so sorry.
>
> And thanks for your attention.
>
> Wagner
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:
>
>> Wagner, the Chalmer’s book looks interesting: it’s unusual to see an
>> introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend.
>> I think though that Latour’s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into
>> Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science.
>>
>> Can I ask, though, why are you “struggling" with the notion of ontology?
>> It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on
>> epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that
>> every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology,
>> usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make
>> assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which
>> they are trying to obtain knowledge.
>>
>> So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for
>> granted, and so ignored. Lukács laid out a “social ontology”: exploring how
>> new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which
>> call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of
>> dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are
>> studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied
>> by the natural sciences.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss
>> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my
>> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with
>> the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications.
>> Also, I want to know your opinion on this book:
>>
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science
>>
>> In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an
>> "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through György
>> Lukács. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any
>> opinions on this also?
>>
>> Wagner
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list
>>> already and I’ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks
>>> so much, Beth
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to
>>>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend:
>>>>
>>>>    1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech
>>>>    https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm
>>>>    2. Marx's Method of Political Economy
>>>>    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3
>>>>    3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
>>>>    Revolutions
>>>>
>>>>    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm
>>>>
>>>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker?
>>>> Andy
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < <bferholt@gmail.com>
>>>> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and
>>>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who
>>>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability
>>>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the
>>>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the
>>>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor"
>>>>>>>> and "reliability".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA
>>>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they
>>>>>>>> teach a methods class?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Beth
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Beth Ferholt
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art
>>>>>>>> Education;
>>>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>>>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue
>>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2900+Bedford+Avenue+Brooklyn,+NY+11210&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210
>>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2900+Bedford+Avenue+Brooklyn,+NY+11210&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>>> -2889
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Email: <bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu>bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Beth Ferholt
>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education;
>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center
>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue
>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>>>
>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/32244bab/attachment.html 