Yeah, I’m reading Michael Lynch’s _Scientific practice and ordinary action_ (1993), which is extremely tedious but also extremely important (which is why I put it off for so long and also why I’m reading it now). I thought of you several times while reading it and may send notes
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Finally around page 275 he gets to the point, viz and explanation of how the ethnomethodological approach fixes all the big confusions in the philosophy and sociology of science.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Think I may summarize this in a post tentatively titled “Harold Garfinkel’s one weird trick.” The trick is to notice that whatever unsolvable metaphysical problem theorists are wrestling with, scientists treat the same issue as a practical, solvable one.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
“How can scientists gain reliable knowledge of the physical world—what is The Scientific Method” versus “How can I adjust the pH of the electrophoresis buffer to get a clean blot that tells me whether protein A binds to protein B?”
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
It’s not The Scientific Method that does the work, it’s the electrophoresis power supply. It does 90W of work, to be specific. https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/PS0090 …pic.twitter.com/y49kr9Iwrx
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
wait watts are power not work my joke is broken and doesn’t work I nearly flunked out of freshman physics
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
One of Lynch’s main points is a “pox on both your houses” analysis of the realist-vs-constructivist debate. He points out, accurately I think, that the constructivists simply invert logical positivism while retaining its conceptual framework.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
His use of Derrida is in that context. Scientific rationalism is a “mythopoetic construct” that is external to the actual scientific work, but that doesn’t mean that the actual concrete work (typically involving duct tape) is not, in relevant senses, rational, objective, etc.pic.twitter.com/AvGDhkG9wz
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
The question is not “how does scientific rationality achieve objectivity” but “how can I fix that hose with some duct tape so the damn machine will give me repeatable data”?
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
JESUS, IT’S ABOUT TIME, DUDE [p. 299]pic.twitter.com/8kRVLAfiQ6
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
OOOO THIS IS SO 4.5->5 METARATIONAL [finally, on THE LAST PAGE OF THE BOOK]pic.twitter.com/NJ9HexQ3We
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.