Wolfgang Zierhofer's reply to J. C. Pen is hardly enlightening except as it
reveals Zierhofer's antagonism to all of science -- scientific method and
results alike -- and his limited understanding of what goes on in
geography. To equate the study of human behavior, location theory,
behaviorism, and positivism is.. just unionformed:
"... the fate of location theory during the last two decades.
However, there has been a decline of behavioral approaches in general.
Behaviorism is a general perspective within social sciences and psychology.
It's origin is strongly related to positivistic philosophy of science..."
This is WZ's view of human geography as science, and indeed of psychology
and other sciences including I suppose medicine.
"...positivistic philosophy of science, which took, impressed by the
success of physics, the classical epistemology
of natural sciences as a model for all science. Simply speaking, this meant
to treat human behavior as a matter of causal relations and of
deterministic explanations."
In other words, human behavior is not caused. Shades of the most mystical
of the Neo-Kantians -- Geist versus Natur!
"Within philosophy this perspective has become
profoundly discredited."
Not true.
"Today, within the humanities human behavior is
regarded as an intentional phenomenon. This means, that it is not treated
as a result of of any causes (or stimuli) but as a result of
interpretations..."
Nonsense.
"human activities are regarded as
"actions", which are steered by indeterminable mental processes. In
principle, but with variations, such a conception of human activities is
today philosophical standard."
"Philosophical standard?" Nonsense.
"This theoretical
development may be one of the (good) reasons for the decline of behavioral
approaches within many disciplines."
Just not happening. Psychology declining? Human geography's conceern with
individuals and trying to explain their behavior -- declining? No way.
Wolfgang: you don't have to be a positivist to be interested in human
actions and their causes and consequences.
And let us not make the mistake of identifying Zierhofer's view with one
side of the "Science Wars." Few critics of science would agrees with his
extreme subjectivism/relativism/solipsism.
Jim Blaut
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|