>
>>References to hermeneutics and deconstruction don't convince me. I've
never
>>been into that kind of lit crit sh*t. I prefer logic, empirical
research,
>>and the philosophy of science (methodology).
If there would be a philosophy or literature person here, s(he) would
*really* be pissed, not only by the unprofessional use of language but
also by ignorance. I am not a big fun of hermeneutics and deconstruction
either, but I never make the mistake of considering those theorists
writing outside the realm of philosopy of science. Science, by its nature,
requires *some form* of hermeneutical understanding-- the question of what
is that we are studying? why and how? Many people who have written
about hermeneutics have also written about the philosophy of social
sciences: nature of understanding, nature of inquiry, different
methodologies, interpretation (don't we interpret facts in economics.
oh!), the status of the relationship between positive and social
sciences, etc, etc..okey I have not seen very many critical studies in
hermeneutics (mind you that hermeneutics and deconstruction are very
different things). I have not seen among *empricists* or pure logicists
either. Empricists are well known to be supportive of status quo by
distorting facts in the name of science. They present ideology as science.
I would not be too quick to accept empricist methodology at face value.
Regarding *critical* hermeneutics, one should have a look at Paul Ricour's
works, not Gadamer's. Paul R. tries to abridge the gap between Marxism and
understanding, and the role of marxist methodology in interpretation.
Why do economists constantly make the claim that what they are doing are
objective science given that it is not-- given that distribution of
resources is by definition a political act!
Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany
