>1. "science" means among other things trying to understand what >in heck is going on in the real, empirical, world. This >involves, if possible, positing "essentialist" theories and >hypotheses, that say what is going on beneath the surface >appearances. (E.g., there Marx's laws of motion of capitalism >give us understanding about how capitalism works and can suggest >conditional predictions about the future.) Understanding does not necessarily mean positing essentialist theories. I think essentialist theoretical moves can hinder understanding. >2. It also means that no hypothesis is the final word on the >subject. Any hypothesis is subject to logical, empirical, or >methodological criticism. Of course, criticism alone does not >trump a theory. An alternative theory is needed to do that. >(E.g., Marxian political economy can incoporate the valid claims >of the neoclassical school and then add more.) Sometimes the >alternative is that no theory is possible, as when most reasonable >people conclude that no reasonable theory can exist about the >connection between astrological signs and human life, contrary to >astrological "theory." > >3. Science should make no claim about objectivity or >value-freeness. (Even Newtonian physics recognizes the role of >frames of reference; nowadways it also recognizes that Newtonian >physics is a special case, based on restrictive assumptions.) >Maybe something like that might arise if enough people look at an >issue from different perspectives, but that's hardly guaranteed. > >4. Just because scientific progress _is possible_ (point 2) >doesn't mean that it will happen. Wrong theories have >replaced right ones, due to the factors of point 3. (The >rise in the belief in the aggregate production function is >an example; that theory still lingers.) > >5. The Wolfnick theory, as I understand it, argues that no >scientific knowledge is possible, i.e., that it's all subjective. >Their epistemology suggests that emprical reality is all in our >perceptions; they reject the "realist" view that even though >empirical reality is damn difficult to see and understand, we can >get some insights by studying, thinking, and/or experimenting. You don't seem to understand "Wolfnick theory." I certainly don't think empirical reality is all in my perceptions; I don't know anyone around RM who thinks it does. Nor does anyone I know think we cannot get some insights by studying, thinking,... >6. Further, efforts to understand what's going on are denounced as >"essentialist" and thus dismissed. The basic Wolfnick insight is that >everything depends on (i.e., is overdetermined by) everything >else. That doesn't really say anything substantive or help us >understand the world; it makes no effort to say which factors are >more important than others. Hearing Wolfnick talk about these >matters at an ASSA confab awhile back, it was clear that there is >no reason for them to decide to write books rather than crossword >puzzles, no reason for them to be Marxist rather than neoclassical >-- except personal preference. It's all subjective. Only certain efforts -- essentialist efforts -- to understand what's going on are denounced as essentialist. Jim, your parody of the Amherst School is little more than slurs. > >7. Blair, you once sent me a copy of an article you wrote, >criticizing Jim O'Connor's ecological theory. It showed that some >effort is being made to break the confines of Wolfnickism. After a >quick recap of criticism slapping O'Connor for essentialism and >the like, the rest of the paper provided some substanitive >criticism and a broader, more general perspective than O'Connor. >It was clear that criticism was not enough. That goes beyond >Wolfnickism as I understand it. I repeat, you don't seem to understand it. (Hey, thanks for reading my paper! Feedback always welcome.) "Essentialist" is shorthand -- a designation -- for certain kinds of theoretical moves. In my paper I argue that it is precisely those moves that get O'Connor into trouble, and that my perception of his making those moves is what enables me to see what I see as trouble (he obviously doesn't see it that way) and how to make some different moves. The critique of essentialism is not just some irrelevant high-falutin rhetoric, and it's not separate from what you call "some substantive criticism and a broader, more general perspective than O'Connor." Jim, as I've made clear to you, I appreciate your contributions to PEN-L and respect your work (not to mention your sense of humor). But I really think your understanding of the Amherst School is extremely deficient, and I wonder when you last gave it any serious consideration. The body of work being produced by the Amherst School has grown and developed tremendously over the past 10 or more years and particularly so in the last half of that period. Regards, Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
