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

Mon Nov 5 15:33:46 PST 2018

Asking the question "What is Science?" goes beyond the explicit concerns of
any particular scientific practice to the concerns of implicit factors in
these undertakings.

An important factor in the implicit concerns, which especially takes on an
explicit concern in attempts to unify science, is a concern for systems.

The study of systems, however, is a rich conceptual field in its own right.
There are numerous kinds of systems and ways of formulating them. Systems
can also be considered in parallel with cognitive complexity, which is part
of my own research interest.

This then leads to the necessary circumstance of recognising that science
may be approached at various levels of complexity or sophistication.

The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and
quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their
implicit ontology) positions the systemic sophistication at a low rung in
the ladder of systemic complexity or richness. The problem is not that the
entry is at a low level, but rather that so much of social science is stuck
or hamstrung at this level.

A significant versatility may be achieved in reading between the lines of
descriptive accounts and statistical accounts by studying the underlying
phenomena as systems. This is the point about Vygotsky's summative
statement regarding "systems and their fate" as the alpha and omega of
their work (1997). The commendation to take Vygotsky's "Thinking and
Speech" as a primer serves an example into various kinds of systemic
formulations and studies (but one would need to inquire quite consciously
into that to see it).

Another aspect to this inquiry is whether you are interested in the rituals
or trappings of science or the process of innovation in doing it. If you
take a view similar to Peirce, then one might argue that the unfettered
enquiry into knowledge is representative of "true science", suggestive that
it is more a commitment and an attitude rather than a particular set of
methods etc.

Best,
Huw

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 14:57, Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:

> It’s kind of you to say this, Greg. Let me mention that the second edition
> has been extended (for example it now includes a discussion of the various
> phases of Latour’s work) and includes an additional chapter that gets into
> the ‘how to’ of QR, through a detailed examination of Loic Wacquant’s
> research in South Chicago. A Spanish translation of this second edition
> will soon by published by Uniandes Press.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:37 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Beth,
> I too would happily second Martin Packer's book The Science of Qualitative
> Research. Really excellent explanation of what qualitative research is all
> about.
> I wrote a review of it for Theory and Psychology and which is up on my
> Academia page.
> Really excellent option if you are interested in getting into the history
> and if you'd like them to have a good answer to the questions: Why
> qualitative? and What is qualitative research good for?
> -greg
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:33 AM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have
>> transcribed only excerpts from it:
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote:
>>
>> Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James’s Notes on Dialectics:
>> Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the
>> ‘Johnston Forest’ Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the
>> State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on
>> Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
>> *Sent:* 04 November 2018 02:02
>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start
>> doctoral students?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though
>> self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of
>> Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at
>> a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of
>> Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical
>> Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel
>> merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without
>> translation!
>>
>> The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by
>> Lenin in 1914:
>>
>> “It is impossible completely to understand Marx's *Capital*, and
>> especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and
>> understood the *whole* of Hegel's *Logic*. Consequently, half a century
>> later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!
>> <https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a>
>> ”
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a
>>
>> and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and
>> Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of
>> "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East
>> European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s.
>>
>> The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now
>> a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look).
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>
>> On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
>>
>> Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin’ and discovered that
>> Carol Gould’s book is available online:
>>
>>
>>
>> Gould, C. C. (1978). *Marx’s social ontology: Individuality and
>> community in Marx’s theory of social relations*. Cambridge, MA: MIT
>> Press.
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://philarchive.org/archive/GOUMSO-3>
>>
>>
>>
>> I hadn’t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx
>> Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book
>> defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows:
>>
>> My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a
>> method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's
>> analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual
>> dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical
>> form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and
>> development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the
>> other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are
>> themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL,
>>
>> My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as
>> a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it
>> is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality
>> by their activity.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was
>> only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of
>> "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century.
>> Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's
>> reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's
>> formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which
>> CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (*Die Lehre
>> vom Sein*) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of
>> Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface
>> to the *Phenomenology*, already mentioned, and implemented in the first
>> book of the Logic.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>
>> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without
>> the attachments just in case someone is watching...
>>
>> They should be publicly accessible.
>>
>> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did,
>> behold the power of Google!).
>>
>>
>>
>> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it
>> has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies.
>> Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx
>> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of
>> it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable
>> with all readings of Marx.
>>
>>
>>
>> -greg
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: *Greg Thompson* <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral
>> students?
>> To: Beth Ferholt < <bferholt@gmail.com>bferholt@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Beth,
>>
>>
>>
>> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some
>> interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here:
>>
>>
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as
>> well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which
>> was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his
>> position.
>>
>>
>>
>> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached).
>>
>>
>>
>> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that
>> really seems to be a very smart approach:
>>
>>
>> <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false>
>> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false
>>
>>
>>
>> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question.
>> I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has
>> "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might
>> be of interest depending on your students' projects:
>>
>> <https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple>
>> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple
>>
>>
>>
>> Best of luck!
>>
>> -greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt < <bferholt@gmail.com>
>> 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>
>>    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>
>>    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>bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/f8c1444a/attachment-0001.html 