|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
6 Aug 1996 17:57:02 -0600
In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.960806085040.19541B-100000@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
Marty G. Price <mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>> [Bryant wrote:]
>> First you were arguing that scientists' theories inevitably reflect
>> their social biases. Now you question whether the others which
>> constitute society even exist, throwing down the philosopher's trump card
>> of solipism.. You're ad libbing, aren't you? :)
>
>You have posted a list of questions formulated within the (shudder at the
>word, but its the best term for now) scientific paradigm. You asked if it
>were possible to look at the terms with a different perspective. (The
>answer, obviously, is "yes.")
That's inaccurate. I asked for evidence that the *content* of those
theories included social bias instead of description of some aspect of
the physical world. If that wasn't obvious from my initial post, it
certainly ought to have been in my follow-ups.
>Then you play at arguing with all those
>obvious answers, arguing with persons who made no claim to endorsing the
>examples you requested.
I have no idea what you are referring to, here.
>As Bill Woody stated, "If you don't want to hear the answer, why did you
>ask the question?"
See my response to that bit of illogic earlier in the thread. Unlike
psychotherapy, Gale, science is not ruled by conventions of validating
others and making them feel good about their "realities." It's hard
nosed and judgemental. And since scientists, not psychotherapists,
helped rid the world of smallpox (for instance), I'm inclined to find
value in their approach to describing the world.
>Blessed Be,
>Gale
Think,
Bryant
|