On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:49:11 -0800, Christopher D. Green wrote: >Indeed, we should be objective, but we should also read Daston & >Galison's book about the history of the term, and how its meaning has >shifted over the decades from the mid-19th century until now (so that we >don't get too self-righteous about the matter). > http://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Lorraine-Daston/dp/1890951781 > >(And then, we could read my article about how some of E. B. Titchener's >work is more explicable if seen through the lens of Daston & Galison's >history of objectivity, forthcoming in the December issue of the history >of science journal, /Isis/) :-)
Shameless self-promoter! :-) In the meantime, for those who've given up their subscriptions to the American Scientist, here's a review of the Daston & Galison book that provides, I think, a reasonable (dare I say "objective") view as well as some of its limitations; see: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-to-be-objective -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6729 or send a blank email to leave-6729-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
