SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:31:15 -0500
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
From:
Anthony Waterman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (71 lines)
Agreed that F. sometimes exaggerated. And if it is really the case that 
'deception and political interference are rife in studies of monetary 
history'
agreed that this is a bad thing.

A.


On 22/10/2011 5:00 AM, Rob Tye wrote:
> Dear Anthony,
>
> I agree with you about Feyerabend's aims, and the importance of those aims,
> and I would add that he writes vividly on the topic.  But the problem is, I
> think, that he overshoots the mark.  It is one thing to point out in
> retrospect that, in the complexity of human affairs, deception and political
> interference might have occasionally produced positive results.  Quite
> another to endorse their legitimacy going forward.  But F does do this.
> Against Method p. 195 ‘deception is necessary for advancing it’ (science);
> p. 216  ‘political interference is necessary’ (to science) etc.
>
> The important thing note here I think is that F seems to have come to
> similar conclusions himself.  He wrote 'Killing Time' on his deathbed,
> (dying of cancer), and said: (p. 179)
>
> ‘One of my motives for writing Against Method was to free people from the
> tyranny of philosophical obfuscators and abstract concepts such as “truth”,
> “reality”, or “objectivity”, which narrow people's vision and ways of being
> in the world. Formulating what I thought were my own attitude and
> convictions, I unfortunately ended up by introducing concepts of similar
> rigidity, such as “democracy”, “tradition”, or “relative truth”.'
>
> It remains my view that things quite close to deception and political
> interference are rife in studies of monetary history, and that this is a
> ‘bad thing’.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> Rob
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:         Anthony Waterman<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists
>
> Dear Rob,
>
> Thank you for your answer. I think that to say that Feyerabend claimed that
> 'science benefits from political interference, and from dishonesty, and is
> on a par with myth' is to misrepresent F's purpose in AM. Perhaps we can
> find passages here and there that are consistent with that interpretation
> (though I have just spent half an hour with my own copy of AM and haven't
> found them). But it seems to me that what F is trying to tell us is that we
> can't lay down in advance any hard and fast procedures for deciding whether
> 'knowledge' has been obtained in some particular case; that in fact
> scientists don't work that way; that much history of science has indeed been
> myth, and myth with an ideological axe to grind, such as the notorious
> Galileo vs Church episode; that we can occasionally find examples of
> political interference in the scientific enterprise which has had benign
> effects; and perhaps most importantly, that human intellectual activity is
> larger and more comprehensive than any disciplinary specialization can
> contain -- that what we call 'science', 'religion', 'art', 'politics',
> 'philosophy', 'magic' etc. may be convenient abstractions for some local
> purposes, but must never be taken too seriously. For to lock ourselves up in
> any of these may be to stultify thought.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Anthony
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2