> > > > Lost it's hold? Recall whom Quine quotes in his > > epigraph to Word and Object -- Quine was a > > right-winger. In fact, Neurath's dialetical holism > is > > central to the internal deconstruction of LP by > > Hempel, Carnap, and others, and corew to the > emerginge > > neopragmatism that Ralph despises so utterly. > > However, we should note that none of these > people embraced the Unity of Science program > as it was envisioned by Neurath, and they, > for the most part,
Right. Though Quine hasa version of a unity of science p[rogram -- get rid of everything but physics. However he also endorsed Davidson's quasi-neo-pragmatic _dis_unity of science view -- though Davidson also followed witha vengeance Neurtah's idea expressed in the epigraph Quine chose (Roughly: we are sailors on a boat who can take up any plank but not all at once). Pragmatists, however, have advocated a sort of unity of science view, once that de-emphasises sharp methodological difference between the science, treating these as a matter of a degree rather than kind. I even wrote my diss on this, it's called, Materialism and the Unity of Science -- a very deliberate nod to Neurath's program. did not share Neurath's concern > with using a unified science as a basis for social > reconstruction. Quine was persinally a hard core right winger who provided a puff for Nozick's Anarachy State and Utopia (And I have reliable personal if hearsay evidence that he was at least racially insensitive.) I have no idea what Davidson's politics were. We know that Carnap remained true to some version of his early leftism. It's hard to tell whether saw unified science as a basis for this, but it is hard to believe that he did not think there was some relation. He contributed also to the U of C Unity of Science series. For the most part, the despised pragmatists have always seen philosophy as part of a program of social reconstruction, and that goes for many of the neoprags -- notably John Rawls, who, despite wobbles and later crappy international positions, always defended (if not loudly) at least what we'd call market socialism or "property-owning democracy" (petty commodity production without wage labor) and opposed corporate capitalism. Others of the neoprags -- formerly Putnam, Miller, Daniels, were Marxists, some -- Boyd, Levine and Sober, maybe Railton, maybe other Cornelistas -- remain on the left. Rorty is at least a social democrat and he has toned down his anti-Marxism a lot, even praising the Manifesto over the Newe Testemant. Moreover the neoprags have also viewed their versions of unity of science as part of their programs of social reconstruction, though perhaps not in Neurath's manner. They assimilated bits and pieces > of Neurath's ideas, never the whole enchilada. Yeah, well, that's called thinking for yourself. > I certainly cannot see Quine for instance signing > on to the Vienna Circle's manifesto, "The Scientific > Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle" with its > praise for Karl Marx and its advocacy of socialism. No kidding, unless he really switched from when he visited the Vienna in the 30s. > I don't think that Quine ever subscribed to > Neurath's > notion of the proletariat as the "bearer of science > without > metaphysics." That's for damn sure. Most of these folk were interested in > narrowing the scope of logical empiricism down > to logic and the philosophy of science, narrowly > conceived. Most of them did not share Neurath's > broader ambitions. I think this is a canard. It's not like Carnap and Hempel were interested in doing that specifically, they did what they had to do to get and keep their jobs in new circumstances. Quine certainly didn't conceive of the scope of logic and phil of science narrowly, but he wasn't ever interested in much else; I doubt whether the nature of his project was consciously motivated. And the Marxist and leftist neoprags of the 60s-on certainly had no such interest. > > > Yes, Carnap promoted the publication of Kuhn's > book. Anyway, in Reisch's *How the Cold War > Transformed Philosophy of Science*, he > draws up a comparison between the ideas and careers > of Philipp Frank and Thomas Kuhn. Interesting, I must read this book. He notes > that both men taught at Harvard, both had > worked under and had been close to > Harvard president, James B. Conant. Who also did social history of science, btw. > Where Reisch sees the two men as differing > in their accounts of science, is that Kuhn > tended to see scientific change as being > driven by professional, sociological, > and psychologic dynamics that were > internal to scientific communities. . . . . . Kuhn on the other hand > argued that it was desirable for us to draw > and maintain sharp distinctions between > science and philosophy. Indeed, the > future progress of science depended on this, > in his opinion. Where? A question, not a a challenge. > > Reisch sees Kuhn's views as fitting the > academic climate of his time which > saw an increased role by the Federal > government in funding scientific research, > which in turn promoted an ever increasing > professionalization and specialization within > the sciences and within science studies. Yeah, and he never grew up in Red Vienna, like Frank, either. jks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
