[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

Andy Blunden ablunden@mira.net
Mon Aug 31 19:56:44 PDT 2015


Sure David, and my comments on this topic carry all possible 
caveats. I referred to a "style of Romantic Science" 
particularly because Larry had correctly mentioned the idea 
of units of analysis (whole-in-the-part) as a "definition" 
of Romantic Science. I think it is clear that that style of 
Romantic Science was not what was meant in relation to 
Sacks. Mike can tell us what he meant. But so far as I know, 
the key attributes of Romantic Science are "delicate 
empiricism" and keeping the whole person/organism before you 
and eschewing analysis. There seem to be quite different 
ways of giving shape to these ideas.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 1/09/2015 12:29 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> I think the problem with this view of romantic science is 
> that it completely precludes building a psychology on a 
> sociology. In that sense (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't 
> a romantic scientist at all. Vygotsky certainly did not 
> believe in "total immersion in the individual case"; such 
> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of theory. 
> I'm not sure Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man 
> with a Shattered Mind" and "The Memory of Mnemonist" are 
> really exceptions. Remember the main criticism of Luria's 
> book "The Nature of Human Conflicts" was always that it 
> was too quantitative.
>
> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that are 
> well studied as case histories. Recently, I've been 
> looking into suicidology, and in particular the work of 
> Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered the linguistic analysis of 
> suicide notes (and who appears to have been influenced, as 
> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work on 
> schizophrinia). Now you would think that if ever there was 
> a field that would benefit from total immersion in the 
> individual case, this is one. But Shneidman says that 
> suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal phrases, and 
> as a consequence very easy to code--and treat 
> quantiatively (one of his first studies was simply to sort 
> a pile of real and imitation suicide notes and carefully 
> note the criteria he had when he made correct judgements). 
> And of course the whole point of Durkheim's work on 
> suicide is that the individual case can be utterly 
> disregarded, since the great variations are sociological 
> and the psychological variables all seem trivial, 
> transient, or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide 
> at a large scale (as we must these days). Shneidman says 
> he has never read a suicide note he would want to have 
> written.
>
> David Kellogg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden 
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks'
>     style of Romantic Science was his complete immersion
>     in the individual case before him, and development of
>     a science of complete persons. The paradigm of this
>     type of science was Luria. A limit case of
>     "Qualitative Science" I suppose. The opposite is the
>     study of just one aspect of each case, e.g. facial
>     recognition, and the attempt to formulate a "covering
>     law" for just this aspect.
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>     On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>
>         Mike,
>         I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that
>         naysayers were cited in reviewing Oliver Sacks’
>         life work. I am wondering if some of that push
>         back was related to his practice of romantic
>         science, which, if I understand from things Andy
>         has written, involves immersion in the phenomena
>         of interest in search of a unit of analysis.
>         Goethe, for example, immersed himself in the
>         phenomena of living things. His writing prefigures
>         the cell as a unit of analysis, but the technology
>         of microscopes could not confirm such a unit until
>         later on. Your contrasting Bruner and Sacks makes
>         me wonder if the subject, not just the object, is
>         at issue. Different styles of research bring
>         different construals. This may be the bane of
>         objectivist, empiricist science but does it really
>         make Sacks less of a researcher and just a lowly
>         clinician?
>         Henry
>
>
>             On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole
>             <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our
>             connections with Luria and
>             the fact that we
>             independently came to embrace the idea of a
>             romantic science. He was a shy
>             and diffident person. You can get that
>             feeling, and the difference between
>             him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the
>             interview with them that someone
>             pirated on
>             to youtube.
>
>             Jerry is very old but last heard from by me,
>             engaging intellectually all
>             the while.
>
>             mike
>
>             On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin
>             <martinl@azscience.org
>             <mailto:martinl@azscience.org>> wrote:
>
>                 Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had
>                 the privilege of spending an
>                 evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was
>                 visiting Jerry Bruner and Carol
>                 Feldman in NY.  I stood in for Sylvia who
>                 couldn't make the dinner - it was
>                 an extraordinary evening in many ways.  Do
>                 you ever hear from Bruner? I
>                 wonder if he's still active.
>
>                 Laura
>
>
>                 Sent from my iPad
>
>                 On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole
>                 <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>                 wrote:
>
>                 Dear Colleagues ---
>
>                 I am forwarding, with personal sadness,
>                 the news that Oliver Sacks has
>                 succumbed to cancer.
>                 Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed.
>                 mike
>                 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>                 Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM
>                 Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at
>                 82; Neurologist and Author
>                 Explored the Brain’s Quirks
>                 To: lchcmike@gmail.com
>                 <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
>
>
>                   Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com
>                 <mailto:sashacole510@gmail.com>: Oliver
>                 Sacks Dies at 82; Neurologist
>                 and Author Explored the Brain’s Quirks
>                 <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
>                 By
>                 GREGORY COWLES
>
>                 Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain’s
>                 strangest pathways in best-selling
>                 case histories like “The Man Who Mistook
>                 His Wife for a Hat,” achieving a
>                 level of renown rare among scientists.
>                 Or, copy and paste this URL into your
>                 browser: http://nyti.ms/1LL040D
>                 <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
>                 To
>                 get unlimited access to all New York Times
>                 articles, subscribe today. See
>                 Subscription Options.
>                 <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
>                 To
>                 ensure delivery to your inbox, please add
>                 nytdirect@nytimes.com
>                 <mailto:nytdirect@nytimes.com> to your
>                 address book. Advertisement
>
>                 <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview>
>                 Copyright 2015
>                 <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
>                 | The New York Times Company
>                 <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
>                 | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York,
>                 NY 10018
>
>
>
>
>
>                 --
>
>                 It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as
>                 a natural science with an
>                 object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>
>
>             -- 
>
>             It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a
>             natural science with an
>             object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the xmca-l mailing list