This posting holds I think, the key passage.
>I would hate to have argue about complexities, that some are more complex
>than others. complexity and simplicities are questions of (evaluated from)
>perpectives and predilections and motives. I do not know really that the
>complexities of the lanugage games of science are any more complex than the
>language games of politics or of religion, or of ...?; and, certainly as to
>one or another being more effective than the other, I cannot imagine the
>criteria that one would create in order to evaluate such a comparative
>evaluation. certainly, once one comprehends science not as revealing the
>"Truth" but as a language game, then the assumption that there is a
>universally valid criteria to measure the differences between language games
>in terms of greater/lesser complexity and more/less effectiveness would
>become impossible to acccept -- or so i imagine.
In order to evaluate differing language games one does not need a
universally valid criteria. If this were the case nothing would have gotten
done ever. On the contrary, we are 'thrown into the world' and are obliged
to act, even inaction is a form of action. How do we act? By making informed
choices on the best evidence we have available. One does not choose between
theories etc. by standing outside theory, not least because such a
proposition is impossible, but because choice requires that we choose, from
where we are now. But where we are now does not mean that we are unable to
reject what we presently believe. Besides, the dismissal of science as 'just
one more language game' although a fine rhetorical strategy is not actually
practiced by anyone. Just think what this would mean. Science is an easy
target, if only because no one understands it.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>I would hate to have argue about complexities, that some are more complex
>than others. complexity and simplicities are questions of (evaluated from)
>perpectives and predilections and motives. I do not know really that the
>complexities of the lanugage games of science are any more complex than the
>language games of politics or of religion, or of ...?; and, certainly as to
>one or another being more effective than the other, I cannot imagine the
>criteria that one would create in order to evaluate such a comparative
>evaluation. certainly, once one comprehends science not as revealing the
>"Truth" but as a language game, then the assumption that there is a
>universally valid criteria to measure the differences between language games
>in terms of greater/lesser complexity and more/less effectiveness would
>become impossible to acccept -- or so i imagine.
In order to evaluate differing language games one does not need a
universally valid criteria. If this were the case nothing would have gotten
done ever. On the contrary, we are 'thrown into the world' and are obliged
to act, even inaction is a form of action. How do we act? By making informed
choices on the best evidence we have available. One does not choose between
theories etc. by standing outside theory, not least because such a
proposition is impossible, but because choice requires that we choose, from
where we are now. But where we are now does not mean that we are unable to
reject what we presently believe. Besides, the dismissal of science as 'just
one more language game' although a fine rhetorical strategy is not actually
practiced by anyone. Just think what this would mean. Science is an easy
target, if only because no one understands it.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------