|
7. Jan 2016|20:49 |
Bet vispār es te lasu un secinu, ka ar dažiem izņēmumiem, komentāri ir visnotaļ neizprotami. Kā var uzskatīt, ka neirozinātne neko nepienes, vai nav zinātne? Tiesa, tā ir asemblēta un retā truly interdisciplinārā nozare, un arī tiesa, ka, piemēram, HBP apakšprojekti piedzīvo dažādus inter-disciplinārus kuriozus un rivalry.
Piedāvāt, ka zinātnes filosofija nekam neder, vai, ka sociālajām zinātnēm būtu jāveic kvalitātīvi identiski eksperimenti un atklājumi kā STEM, ir wtf? Markss, starp citu, joprojām ir the theorist, izturējis visu postmoderno grand-narratives kritiku, tāpat kā daudzi citi. Tagad vnk daudz kas ir skaidrāks, lielā mērā pateicoties tik ļoti peltajai postmodernajai kritikai, kas ievadīja radikālu skepticismu soc. zin. un humanitārajos.
Kas attiecas uz 'fiziķi pre liriķi', atļaušos iepostēt, kā šo interpretēja Levi-Strauss:
"This is one fundamental weakness— and perhaps also the fundamental greatness—of the humane sciences; that all problems pertaining to humankind are ultimately problems for humankind. There is no problem, however small, that does not concern each of us, because our life interests, our personal history, our temperament, our prejudices are immediately implicated in every problem. This is probably the reason why the social sciences should not pretend to reach truth, which is probably impossible of attainment, but more modestly some amount of wisdom—the achievement of which is supremely difficult, as a matter of fact. But if we are able to make even some limited progress towards wisdom, then we may be—and this is perhaps our advantage—we may be more ready to resign ourselves to the general truth that science will remain forever incomplete." |
|