I have found Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism paper helpful in navigating
this debate, for me it functions a platform from which to understand the
epistemic approaches of different disciplines.
Quine proposes a picture where interconnected beliefs, none of which is
self-evidently true (or analytic) - but where some beliefs are supported by
such a densely connected set of other beliefs that they seem (almost)
impossible to disbelieve.
The truths of logic, maths, the idea that squares have four sides, these
are extremely central. Scientific beliefs are perhaps one layer out from
the core of the network, supported by a systematic program of reasoning
from the core. The beliefs we come to through social science are perhaps
one layer out again because causality is so much more complex in human
systems. (Although we could still imagine some beliefs from social science
are better supported than some beliefs from physical science)
Under this view, no beliefs are objectively true, but some beliefs are so
deeply integrated into the network that anyone who tried to deny them would
seem almost certain to end up contradicting themselves - a middle ground
between positivism and relativism.
Original paper: http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:45 AM, João Ferreira <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Perhaps knowledge cannot be objective, but aren’t there clear merits in
> trying to be objective about knowledge? Much like love. I cannot prove that
> Love is something that exists, but it is a wonderful thing to pursue (like
> the objectivity of knowledge).
>
> Therefore, the objectivity of knowledge — and Love — become principles to
> pursue (and fail to reach). In both cases it is the process that matters,
> not the end result. For instance, to love without expecting to be loved
> back is a part of the process of reaching love. Likewise, to be objective
> about stuff in the world is part of the process to reach knowledge. Perhaps
> there are other ways to reach knowledge. Some religious people, for
> instance, believe in revelatory knowledge. And yet, when ill, how many
> among them would prefer a prayer to an objective medical procedure?
>
> This debate reminds me of a wonderful quote (in a book about writing) by
> Thomas & Turner (2011):
>
> *When we open a cookbook, we completely put aside—and expect the author to
> put aside—the kind of question that leads to the heart of certain
> philosophic and religious traditions. Is it possible to talk about cooking?
> Do eggs really exist? Is food something about which knowledge is possible?
> Can anyone else ever tell us anything true about cooking? *p.79
>
> All good and well formulated epistemological questions, but how close do
> they get us to the perfect spaghetti pomodoro?
>
> 'best,
>
> Thomas, F. N., & Turner, M. (2011). *Clear and simple as the truth: Writing
> classic prose*. Princeton University Press.
>
> --
> *João Ferreira*
> 00351 967089437
> 0031 0619808750
>
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> phone: 07507 140 643
> twitter: @jimmytidey
> jimmytidey.co.uk/blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|