Actually, I think the book is called What Computers Still Can't Do. Sorry.
S
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Elden <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 10:42
Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>Kuhn was a physicist, then a historian of science, then a professor of
>philosophy and linguistics. Interestingly, Hubert Dreyfus trained as a
>physicist before working on Heidegger and Foucault. Dreyfus' book on
>Heidegger, and his What Machines Still Can't Do show this interest in
>technology and science.
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wynship Hillier <whi@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 02:58
>Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>
>
>>M.A. King wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't Kuhn start out as a practising scientist of some sort? I could
be
>>> mistaken. Anyway, off the top of my head, there's also Ruth Hubbard at
>>> the University of Toronto, who was / has been a practising biologist for
>>> most of her career.
>>
>>I don't know either, but Thomas Hughes had undergraduate training in
>electrical engineering, Shiela Jasanoff in
>>mathematics. Susan Fox Keller as well as Weibe Bijker (I think) have the
>doctorate in physics, Donna Haraway in
>>biology. My own philosophy of science professor was a former physicist.
>The STS people, while consisting largely of
>>science-haters, also have many science burnouts. (If you wondered where
>Lyotard's demoralized scientists went...) But
>>none of those people are doing any science whatsoever nowadays. People
>crossing the other direction, from liberal arts
>>to science, are more rare (my chem prof. was a former Presbyterian
>minister). But its the same thing -- the former
>>career has been dropped entirely. There's no dialog accross the gap.
I'll
>check out Ruth Hubbard, though. Thanks for
>>mentioning her. The name's not familiar.
>>
>>Wynship
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
S
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Elden <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 10:42
Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>Kuhn was a physicist, then a historian of science, then a professor of
>philosophy and linguistics. Interestingly, Hubert Dreyfus trained as a
>physicist before working on Heidegger and Foucault. Dreyfus' book on
>Heidegger, and his What Machines Still Can't Do show this interest in
>technology and science.
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wynship Hillier <whi@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 02:58
>Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>
>
>>M.A. King wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't Kuhn start out as a practising scientist of some sort? I could
be
>>> mistaken. Anyway, off the top of my head, there's also Ruth Hubbard at
>>> the University of Toronto, who was / has been a practising biologist for
>>> most of her career.
>>
>>I don't know either, but Thomas Hughes had undergraduate training in
>electrical engineering, Shiela Jasanoff in
>>mathematics. Susan Fox Keller as well as Weibe Bijker (I think) have the
>doctorate in physics, Donna Haraway in
>>biology. My own philosophy of science professor was a former physicist.
>The STS people, while consisting largely of
>>science-haters, also have many science burnouts. (If you wondered where
>Lyotard's demoralized scientists went...) But
>>none of those people are doing any science whatsoever nowadays. People
>crossing the other direction, from liberal arts
>>to science, are more rare (my chem prof. was a former Presbyterian
>minister). But its the same thing -- the former
>>career has been dropped entirely. There's no dialog accross the gap.
I'll
>check out Ruth Hubbard, though. Thanks for
>>mentioning her. The name's not familiar.
>>
>>Wynship
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>