How odd to come off as the optimist here.
Yes, I do think empathetic observation is possible.
'Verstehen' or understanding requires interpretation.
It requires perception. It is entangled.
Ten+ years ago, I asked my freshpeople composition
students for their definitions of the word,
'objective.'
The answer I still remember today is 'fair.' At the
time, I was quite taken aback by that - oh, I never
thought of it that way! Up to that time, I had
thought
of objective mainly as the opposite of 'subjective.'
'Fair' brought judgment into focus, did away with the
illusion of the mechanical scientist, the transparent
scientist, the simple conduit of knowledge.
So, what's fair in science?
Replicability I find fair, and wise. Working with
procedures that others can use I find fair. Clarity
about the interpretive nature of my data analyses
I find fair. Wondering about what's missing and
whether it's important. And I like to count things.
My friend and colleague Joan quoted someone saying,
'It's easy to lie with statistics, but it's easier
to lie without them.' In Central L. A., there are
so many examples of that, like different death rates
lining up with skin color as well as gender.
To the extent that I actually work with the people
whose ways with words I study, empathy is absolutely
crucial. And that empathy adds to my perceptions.
The 'I can relate' is not hollow. At least, I hope
it's not. Then, the science tells me to take a step
back, triangulate, check my facts, reflect, reflect,
reflect some more. Resist the pressure to hurry.
That's a whole other story, the new speed science ...
Diane, send me the paper. I don't know about the
time line in art & stories ... I am intrigued!
Genevieve
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:07 PST