[Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse

[Andy Blunden]

Jenna, my observation has to be read within the rubric of CHAT.
Your response participates what I called the "contested self-definition" 
of the object of science, taking place within science.
But was I referring to is that project, in which people write books 
critiquing each other, work in buildings with names of the sciences on 
them and attend conferences purporting to be scientific conferences, 
subjects are taught at school and programs run on TV all describing each 
other as "science" and thereby constituting "science" a a project. That 
is, I am talking about something objective, something which one can 
study and learn about and even write books like "The Structure of 
Scientific Revolutions" about, and observe over time the changing 
self-definitions of the object of science within.
OK? Activities define *their own* objects. Contesting that definition is 
certainly part of being a scientist, but science, as an activity or 
institution, is not dependant on what you and I, writing here on xmca in 
2014, says it is. The concept of science is immanent in the activity of 
science, is constituted by it and constitutes it.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Jenna McWilliams 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.