Date: |
Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 |
Message-ID: |
<v03007800aed0de03f3fc@[129.74.251.121]> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
==================== HES POSTING ====================
Contrary to Patrick Gunning (and contrary to the dogma of most
intellectuals at the turn of the century), I would suggest that our
understanding is better grounded and communicated in examples
than it is in definitions (see, e.g., the arguments of Thomas Kuhn
in his _The Essential Tension_, or contrast the views on language of
Wittgenstein and that of Plato, Hobbes, Russell, or most analytic
philosophers). However, I would also suggest that the best examples
of the history of science in other fields support Gunning's own
picture (and examples) of good work in the history of economics --
e.g., the work of Michael Ghiselin and Ernst Mayr in the history of
Darwinian Biology. I'm still waiting for an argument explaining why
the work of Ghiselin and Mayr isn't a legitimate form of the history of
science.
Greg Ransom
Dept. of Philosophy
UC-Riverside
[log in to unmask]
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|