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

Fri Nov 2 09:26:39 PDT 2018

Okay, so now we need recommendations for a good introductory philosophy text!  :)

Epistemology and ontology are certainly interrelated. One could say that there is no epistemology without ontology: no knowledge without assumptions about the kinds of entity that can be known. Can the properties of electrons be known? Can the properties of God be known? Can the properties of elves be known? Your answer to each question will depend on your assumptions about the existence of the entity involved. 

You exist (ontological claim). You also know (epistemological claim) that you exist (at least while you are awake) ...

I once put the matter this way: "Epistemology is the systematic consideration, in philosophy and elsewhere, of knowing: when knowledge is valid, what counts as truth, and so on. Ontology is the consideration of being: what is, what exists, what it means for something—or somebody—to be."

Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-241.

<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02>>

Martin

> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> I struggle not of accepting the idea of ontology, but the concept itself. Is it a "way to exist"? But to acknowledge that we exist, or the way we exist, isn't also "to know"? Isn't this the base of the "cogito, ergo sum", I think therefore I exist? So what is the difference between ontology and epistemology?
> 
> I feel like the "ontology" is kind of related to the German bildung tradition, or is this wrong?
> 
> Sorry if those sounds like silly questions. I am just beginning my studies on philosophy, so sorry.
> 
> And thanks for your attention.
> 
> Wagner
> 
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
> Wagner, the Chalmer’s book looks interesting: it’s unusual to see an introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend. I think though that Latour’s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science.
> 
> Can I ask, though, why are you “struggling" with the notion of ontology? It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology, usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which they are trying to obtain knowledge.
> 
> So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for granted, and so ignored. Lukács laid out a “social ontology”: exploring how new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied by the natural sciences.
> 
> Martin
> 
> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com <mailto:wagner.schmit@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. Also, I want to know your opinion on this book:
>> 
>> https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science <https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science>
>> 
>> In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through György Lukács. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any opinions on this also?
>> 
>> Wagner
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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:
>> 
>> 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>
>> 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>
>> And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions 
>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm <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 <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 < <mailto:bferholt@gmail.com>bferholt@gmail.com <mailto: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:  <mailto:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu>bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu <mailto: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 <mailto:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu>
>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/2ee5966d/attachment.html 