Bruce,
For this point:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Robinson <bruce.rob@btinternet.com>
To: xmca list <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Cc: Helen Richardson <H.Richardson@salford.ac.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: reading Laszlo's paper
> In what sense can we talk of a discipline being in crisis over
> a long period during which knowledge can nevertheless be seen to advance
> through a - however flawed - 'normal science'?
I admit that it is the most embarrassing point of the whole matter. I have to also admit, that, thus, I have about it two different positions:
1. We have one long-lasting crisis, as I put it in the mail you have been quoting, and I may agree even with Mike, who writes about 75 years of crisis.
2. It is "another crisis", as we put it in the tittle of our paper, and between this one and that of LSV there is a totally anti-crisis period with the euphoria of a full consensus about the psychology being a natural science.
But for both positions it holds that the crisis/ crises is/are related to that problem of a split psychology.
For this point, Bill. You ask me:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy@yahoo.com>
To: Garai László <garai@mtapi.hu>; <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Laszlo's comments on crises
> Laszlo,
>
> Are you saying that a natural science cannot
> also be a cultural-historical science?
Yes, I am. But if I gave my motives for it, it would be only repeating what I wrote in the paper.
Back to Bruce's text:
As to the question whether Kuhn is applicable at all to such a discipline as psychology and yours, it would be rather useful of having read Richard Whitley but I haven't as yet. Being based exclusively on what you are writing about it I am thinking actually that your arguments are as well applicable to the physics that is fragmented to the one adhered to the relativity theory and the other one which is adhered to the quantum theory. Now, while I am not an expert in the physics, as to the psychology I know not one of its phenomena that would not be a brain phenomenon and acultural phenomenon at the same time. Hence we would need a facility of relating within the psychology the natural science and the historical science, wouldn't we?
Laszlo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:19 PDT