I just read Jay's reply to you. Don't you think these discussions are
going to get us and our fellow xmca'ers deep into some age-old
philosophical questions? :-) Well, some fellow xmca'ers have told me
they found some of our messages difficult to understand, "full of
technical jargon" such that they find it difficult to join in the
discussions. So, I'm always conscious of this difficulty of e-mail
discussions... so much packed into several screens! However, the issues
we're discussing are worth discussing, but I'd also like to know if there
are ways of doing our discussions in a more inclusive way? I don't know
for the time being. Technical terms are information-packed; and given
our time constraint and the eye-strain when the message gets too long...:-)
I remember Mike suggested some time ago that we might try using this
medium in ways that connect e-mail discussions to texts... so, I'll try this:
James happens to have an article that addresses the Galileo example in
particular and the related issues of objectivism, essentialism, and
the alternative phenomenological view:
Heap, James L. (1991) "A situated perspective on what counts as
reading." In Carolyn D. Baker and Allan Luke (Eds.), Towards a Critical
Sociology of Reading Pedagogy, pp.103-140.
Garfinkel et al. have a piece describing how scientists "discover" a Pulsar
out of the dots on their computer printouts; describe a situation that
seems to be similar to the situation of Galileo and his telescope (his tool
for "discovery"):
Garfinkel, H.; Lynch, M. and Livingston, E. (1981). "The work of a
discovering science construed with materials from the optically
discovered pulsar." _Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 2, pp. 131-158.
You may not agree with what they say there, but you may find it
interesting to look at how these issues are approached from a
phenomenological perspective.
Thanks for your good wishes, hope to be able to write to you and xmca as
often as I can in Canada... :-)
All the best,
Angel
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Gary Shank wrote:
> Dear Angel --
> This is my last response for now -- you need to get your
> packing done :-) I assumed that when you described theories
> as tools, you meant that they were tools for explicating the
> truth. Sorry about that presumption....
> When you say that there is no 'truth-in-itself' but only
> 'truth for whom' I think you are partially right and partially
> wrong. If you mean by 'truth for whom' that there are no truth
> claims except those that are supported by grounds, and that those
> grounds are grounds that are assumed or developed by human beings,
> then I agree with you. If you extend that to saying that because
> truth claims have to be based on grounds that are held by human
> beings, and that truth claims are the only way we can describe or
> model the truths of nature/world/reality etc, then it follows that
> there can be no truth without truth claims.... then I think you
> are taking the argument too far. If you rule out the notion that
> there are truths that have not yet been put into truth claim form,
> then you make the claim that all truths are constructed, and no
> truths are discovered. As an example, was it true that Jupiter had
> moons before Galileo looked at these 'dots' through his telescope
> and decided to call them moons? In other words, did Galileo
> construct the moons of Jupiter, or did he discover them?
> Sorting out the relation of truth claims and their grounds
> from potentially discoverable truths about reality is just the
> sort of version of truth that I think you are looking for -- where
> we support the role of meaning and culture in the enterprise of
> seeking truth, without reducing truth seeking to truth making in
> a relativistic way.
> Hope your life and career in Hong Kong is wonderful, and dont be
> a stranger!
> yours,
> gary shank
> gshank who-is-at niu.edu
>
>