Jim Blaut wrote:
>1. What is this "behaviorism" that you dislike so much? It seems to be the
>stuff that became unimportant 50 years ago with the decline of the
>Wienerschnitzl school (Carnap et al.) and rat psychology.
My answer:
Indeed Behaviorism as a school was related to ethology and is not any
longer alive in its curde form. However, some empirical work in the
eighties and the nineties still follows in principle the same mode of
explanation for human acitivities. If what some observed people do is
explained exclusively by variables of their environment but not by the
purposes that they follow, such kinds of explanations are still
"behavioristic", independent of the authors calling themselves
behaviorists, or behaviouralists ar whatever else. This is really not my
field, but for instance there are still studies on environmental behavior
done which try to explain human acitivities according to models that are
based on environmental variables, and which are consequently deterministic
(and usually stochastic). However, there may be authors who refer also to
"intentions" (goals, purposes) of actors in their (stochastic) models and
explanations. Even if they call this "behaviouralism", and even if it looks
rather similar to "behavioristic" modes of explanation, they are profoundly
different.
[This is also my answer to Rob's mail.]
Jim Blaut wrote:
>2. I think you'll find that most scholars, including geographers, opt for
>causal analysis. I suspect that relatively few support philosophical
>determinism, which is a different and unrelated issue.
You better keep your thoughts about what I find for yourself. I am able to
speek for myself. Besides you are wrong about my thoughts. (No comment on
your suspection.)
Jim Blaut wrote:
>3. You have every right to hold to a philosophy that denies monism,
>causality, and naturalism.
My answer:
But I do hold to a philosophy which is monistic in ontological terms! : it
is reasonable to assume that there is only one world, but not two as
Descartes would have it, or maybe three as some Intepretations of
Durkheim's social reality as reality sui generis would have it. The point
is, that the problem of representation is not longer solved by ontological
but by epistemological (or terminological, methodological) differentiations.
Jim Blaut wrote:
>But it is not valid to claim that this is the dominant point of view and
>the wave of the future.
My answer:
I do not sell cloths, therefore fashions and mainstreams are more or less
irrelevant for me. But I try to understand argumentations and their
consequences. However I may observe that certain positions face masses of
strong critical arguments (they are outdated).
Jim Blaut wrote:
>It was your extravagant claim in this regard that I felt it necessary to
>criticize on CGF. But I
>didn't and don't want to get into a debate on these issues -- a debate
>that would have no determinate end.
My answer:
So what do you understand by critique? Taking the time and the effort to
formulate arguments, to try to express your understanding, to try to
explain concisely what you mean? Or is it enough to throw a little bit of
mud ("nonsense", "uninformed", "extravagant" and other defeating
qualifications)? Sorry to say that, but that's how I perceive some of your
statements.
I would like to learn what I understood wrong, and then I will realize
myself that I have been uninformed, and that I was expressing nonsense.
However, you are right, that a real exchange of arguments probably will
have no determinate end. Well, that's the "nature" of argumentation, and
argumentative debate should be the core of science - at least as I
understood it so far. I used to have e-mail debate with some of my frieds.
They usually ended soon when we understood our differences clearly.
With respect
Wolfgang
------------------------------------
Dr. Wolfgang Zierhofer
Imfeldstr. 4
CH - 5430 Wettingen
Switzerland
Tel. +41 (0) 56 426 00 75
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|