I'm pretty sure that Bert was a physicist too, though it is worth pointing
out his brother's work.
On the more substantive point, I can't help thinking that until those in the
sciences hard and soft realise what Heidegger meant as the difference
between the ontic and the ontological, and what Foucault suggested between
connaissance and savoir, and that these are essentially historical
questions, they are never going to be able to make use of what
'philosophers' write.
If that sounds intolerant, perhaps it is. Wynship, you might also want to
think about what the word 'critique' means. Can you honestly say that Kant's
three critiques are "Just a critique, no viable proposal. Ultimately,
therefore, of no consequence"?
Stuart
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Wynship Hillier <whi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 19:15
Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>Stuart Elden wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you sure you are not confusing Bert
>with his brother, who is, ironically,
>also named Stuart, with whom he
>co-authored one of his books, and who
>remains a
>practicing scientist?
>
>In any event, I must be expressing
>myself exceedingly poorly, as I remain
>badly
>misunderstood. I am already quite aware
>that there lots of books like What
>Machines Can't Do, which are basically
>critical studies of science and
>technology, having devoted years of
>study to them. My disappointment is
>that
>there are only critical studies
>available. There are no positive
>studies. What
>Computers Can't Do throws a sorry sop in
>this direction at the end, but any
>scientist can tell you that it is short
>on critical details. Terry Winograd and
>Fernando Flores also made a stab in the
>dark, and came up with nothing.
>Nothing has come of these books. They
>have only served to demoralize
>would-be scientists in artificial
>intelligence, which is not in itself
>bad. It
>is good, to the extent that it slows
>down the progress of the scientific
>machinery, but it only prolongs the
>inevitable. There has been, still, no
>positive contribution from critical
>science studies. There has been no
>viable
>alternative research programme arising
>from it. The subtitle of Dreyfus' book
>says it all "A Critique of Artificial
>Reason". Just a critique, no viable
>proposal. Ultimately, therefore, of no
>consequence.
>
>
>
out his brother's work.
On the more substantive point, I can't help thinking that until those in the
sciences hard and soft realise what Heidegger meant as the difference
between the ontic and the ontological, and what Foucault suggested between
connaissance and savoir, and that these are essentially historical
questions, they are never going to be able to make use of what
'philosophers' write.
If that sounds intolerant, perhaps it is. Wynship, you might also want to
think about what the word 'critique' means. Can you honestly say that Kant's
three critiques are "Just a critique, no viable proposal. Ultimately,
therefore, of no consequence"?
Stuart
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Wynship Hillier <whi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 19:15
Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market
>Stuart Elden wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you sure you are not confusing Bert
>with his brother, who is, ironically,
>also named Stuart, with whom he
>co-authored one of his books, and who
>remains a
>practicing scientist?
>
>In any event, I must be expressing
>myself exceedingly poorly, as I remain
>badly
>misunderstood. I am already quite aware
>that there lots of books like What
>Machines Can't Do, which are basically
>critical studies of science and
>technology, having devoted years of
>study to them. My disappointment is
>that
>there are only critical studies
>available. There are no positive
>studies. What
>Computers Can't Do throws a sorry sop in
>this direction at the end, but any
>scientist can tell you that it is short
>on critical details. Terry Winograd and
>Fernando Flores also made a stab in the
>dark, and came up with nothing.
>Nothing has come of these books. They
>have only served to demoralize
>would-be scientists in artificial
>intelligence, which is not in itself
>bad. It
>is good, to the extent that it slows
>down the progress of the scientific
>machinery, but it only prolongs the
>inevitable. There has been, still, no
>positive contribution from critical
>science studies. There has been no
>viable
>alternative research programme arising
>from it. The subtitle of Dreyfus' book
>says it all "A Critique of Artificial
>Reason". Just a critique, no viable
>proposal. Ultimately, therefore, of no
>consequence.
>
>
>