Yeah, they buried the point due to certain internal conceptual contradictions in the ethnometho program that the field never resolved
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
A central ethno tenet is that you try to observe without bringing in any theoretical presuppositions, and you don’t generalize other than >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
on the basis of enormous amounts of pretheoretical observational data. But this is not actually possible. Here they want to both claim >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
strong confirmation of their theoretical framework based on n=1 observation, and to make strong metaphysical points about perception&objects
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
while simultaneously pretending they aren’t doing that. I suspect this contradiction can be resolved via separating the rational & metarat
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
levels of analysis, which might rescue the ethno project, which afaict has been basically dead for 25 years. But not sure!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
While googling for this paper I found a number of commentaries on it, notably from rationalists who took GLL as relativist Idealists, i.e. >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
the rats thought GLL were claiming that the pulsar was conjured into existence by “social construction” or something, which misses the point
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
My impression is that ethno was collateral damage in the 1990s Science Wars (Sokal etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Many sociology-of-science people actually were “social constructionists” in an Idealist sense: there’s no physical reality, it’s all talk
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And that wasn’t the ethnometho line at all. Rather they were trying to get at the process whereby the independent physical reality could >
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
occasion and be characterized more-or-less accurately BY talk, which is exactly what philosophy of science would need to do, but failed at.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.