Cheerskep: In response to the discussion Chris and I were having, the
subject of which was "the value" science might place on artifacts versus
"the value" aesthetics might place on those objects, you have suggested that
we are using "soft phrases" resistant to precise definition. To divert from
the subject which had been at hand (valuing of artifacts) to soft versus
hard phrases: I accept your criticism. However, in the context of this
discussion, some mild effort might lead to an inference that Chris is
suggesting that persons trained in science and giving priority to those
rules (I would also call them values) which guide scientific investigation
would assert different evaluations/perceptions of artifacts as opposed to
persons coming to the discussion from a background in, and speaking from the
"values" (or rules) of aesthetics.
We may initiate a discussion of the difficulty in defining in "hard phrases"
what a value is. In that discussion, I would offer that a means of deciding,
not without risks, would be to infer from those speeches given by persons
what they lauded or denigrated, or their behaviours relevant to the issue
which might either reflect respect and admiration or disgust. Surely, that
would lead to another discussion of what speech acts or behaviours were
relevant and what significance might be assigned to particular acts and to
the environment in which that information might be collected. If we agree
that this exercise is of interest and merits our collective time we could
start in on it. If we were to delay discussion of Chris' offering that
science would value artifacts differently than aesthetics, he would be
waiting some long while for response.
Alternatively, are there terms which would involve hard phrases which you
would recommend to us, to pursue the discussion which Chris initiated?
Geoff C
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 'The value' is linguistic quicksand
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:20:28 EST
Geoff wrote:
> "I just don't see how a methodology which is supposedly value-free can
> pronounce on the value of artifacts."
>
Too briefly: The phrase "the value" is communication quicksand, both
because of 'the' and because of 'value'. The word/notion "value" is what
I'll call
"soft" as opposed to "hard" -- i.e. it doesn't come attached to current or
potential sense data. "Eiffel Tower" and "taste of vanilla" are hard
phrases.
Soft, derivative phrases aren't useful without serviceably precise
descriptions
of the notions behind them.
The definite article 'the' both reifies and implies there is solely a
single
"referent". But readers will claim there are many different kinds of
"value".
This prompts Chris to an oblique half-response:
"Some artifacts serve as better scientific evidence than others -- that's
how."
Geoff's response to that aims to harden the phrase a bit, but the exchange
is
unlikely to escape the quicksand.
**************
Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10000
0075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/downloa
d.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
