Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
So I'm wondering what this thread is about now. On one hand it seems to be about the production of knowledge; Tim seems to be arguing that all knowledge is culturally produced and, as such, has to, and can only be, judged in the context of the "culture" that produced it. Kenny seems to be arguing that knowledge that is "merely" cultural practice is not science and is, therefore, false, whereas "science" is supra-cultural and thus escapes from its cultural constraints and, as well as producing its own knowledge is in a position to assess the knowledge claims of other cultural knowledge production.
Tim's position seems to imply a thoroughgoing cultural relativism - all ontologies and epistemologies are equal, whilst Kenny's seems to imply a cultural hegemony - all ontologies and epistemologies are not equal, and the western scientific ontology and epistemology trumps all others.
If that's a reasonable statement of "the problem" you might expect a solution. Well, I don't have one other than to recollect the Jamesian definition of truth as that which it is useful to believe, (by which he meant that which requires the least adjustment to the existing ontology and epistemology of the one judging the truth or falsehood of a claim).
|
Thank you, it seems a good summary to me.
I personally think that knowledge is the product of cultural and social processes, but that it can be assessed objectively... scientifically, as it were.