A question about Fawn Brodie

[_TAK]

I don't have children. I refer to my dog as my daughter amongst friends and family. I'm sorry this escaped you.

You were trying to be clever in dodging a question and everyone noticed..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't have children. I refer to my dog as my daughter amongst friends and family. I'm sorry this escaped you.

You were trying to be clever in dodging a question and everyone noticed..

I certainly wasn't dodging. Apart from the question being personal, and me being under no obligation to respond, I answered in the manner I almost always do; by referring to my dog. People almost always get the hint. It's a fun little thing my wife and I enjoy. Perhaps there is something about this board that makes people incapable of grasping things like this. My guess is the denial of a charitable reading. For example, in another thread harmony made a crack about scratch, saying something about his normal standards. I, reading uncharitably, responded to harmony uncharitably. Then, after she explained, her intention was easily manifest. I was then able to detect the problem- not in harmony- but in myself. As you consistently refuse to allow me a charitable reading it is really no wonder my answer to a question he didn't have any business asking flew right over your head.

But all of this nonsense is far, far afield from my purposes, or anything of actual relevance to the thread. So back to my question which remains to be answered: I'd like an explanation of the charge that "apologists" misuse theories of Thomas Kuhn. I'd like names, examples, and explanations of the misuse. If these won't be provided I will assume that the parties are no longer interested in the discussion, or that they were bluffing, or that they were mistaken and are now questioning their previous statements, or something else.

[_TAK]

I certainly wasn't dodging. Apart from the question being personal, and me being under no obligation to respond, I answered in the manner I almost always do; by referring to my dog. People almost always get the hint. It's a fun little thing my wife and I enjoy. Perhaps there is something about this board that makes people incapable of grasping things like this. My guess is the denial of a charitable reading. For example, in another thread harmony made a crack about scratch, saying something about his normal standards. I, reading uncharitably, responded to harmony uncharitably. Then, after she explained, her intention was easily manifest. I was then able to detect the problem- not in harmony- but in myself. As you consistently refuse to allow me a charitable reading it is really no wonder my answer to a question he didn't have any business asking flew right over your head.

But all of this nonsense is far, far afield from my purposes, or anything of actual relevance to the thread. So back to my question which remains to be answered: I'd like an explanation of the charge that "apologists" misuse theories of Thomas Kuhn. I'd like names, examples, and explanations of the misuse. If these won't be provided I will assume that the parties are no longer interested in the discussion, or that they were bluffing, or that they were mistaken and are now questioning their previous statements, or something else.

Would not it have been simpler to say, "No Merc, I don't have a daughter but if I did and some bastard tried to bed her I'd kill the SOB.." That is what you would do right?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Would not it have been simpler to say, "No Merc, I don't have a daughter but if I did and some bastard tried to bed her I'd kill the SOB.." That is what you would do right?

I answered in my preferred way. I am now concluding any discussion on that issue henceforth. It wasn't anyone's business to begin with I am sorry for indulging. So, back to my questions as noted above and no further distractions.

[_TAK]

I answered in my preferred way. I am now concluding any discussion on that issue henceforth. It wasn't anyone's business to begin with I am sorry for indulging. So, back to my questions as noted above and no further distractions.

I think we all understand..

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I answered in my preferred way. I am now concluding any discussion on that issue henceforth. It wasn't anyone's business to begin with I am sorry for indulging. So, back to my questions as noted above and no further distractions.

I think we all understand..

Insert some inane insinuation here..

[_harmony]

Apart from the question being personal, and me being under no obligation to respond, I answered in the manner I almost always do; by referring to my dog. People almost always get the hint. It's a fun little thing my wife and I enjoy.

I have a sister who has no children. She refers to her horses and cows as her "babies", and her dogs as her "girls", and her cats as her "boys" so I understand your post. Maybe others who don't treat their animals as family wouldn't understand.

[Guest]

I get the feeling Gad has no idea how so-called apologists have "used" Kuhn, or anything along that line. It appears to be a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" yet again.

How is that? I gave a recap of Peter Godfrey-Smith's summary of "paradigms" which is particularliy on point as his focus is to disentangle Kuhn's use of the term from the popular use of the term -- one that most apologists I've encountered take in hook line and sinker (Bokovoy's sermon on paradigm shifting, for instance, per Runtu) -- that had been reinvented by motivational speakers, bullshitters, and the worst parts of "science studies".

On the other hand, your contribution has been:

1. To accuse people who have read Kuhn of not having read him.
2. Admitting that you haven't read Kuhn.
3. Claiming that others have misunderstood Kuhn and that you will prove it before you've even finished reading him to know what he says.

I do know how apologists have used Kuhn. I have a little collection of apologist usage of Kuhn. I see no reason why I should say more, however, since I've already provided substance on the matter, and I think all the lurkers here can see that you're just taking cheap shots without intending to back anything up.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I get the feeling Gad has no idea how so-called apologists have "used" Kuhn, or anything along that line. It appears to be a game of "heads I win, tails you lose" yet again.

How is that? I gave a recap of Peter Godfrey-Smith's summary of "paradigms" which is particularliy on point as his focus is to disentangle Kuhn's use of the term from the popular use of the term -- one that most apologists I've encountered take in hook line and sinker (Bokovoy's sermon on paradigm shifting, for instance, per Runtu) -- that had been reinvented by motivational speakers, bullshitters, and the worst parts of "science studies".

On the other hand, your contribution has been:

1. To accuse people who haven't read Kuhn of not having read him.
2. Admitting that you haven't read Kuhn.
3. Claiming that others have misunderstood Kuhn and that you will prove it before you've even finished reading him to know what he says.

I do know how apologists have used Kuhn. I have a little collection of apologist usage of Kuhn. I see no reason why I should say more, however, since I've already provided substance on the matter, and I think all the lurkers here can see that you're just taking cheap shots without intending to back anything up.

Took you bloody long enough. Where can I see G-Smith's argument?

[_Gadianton]

Well, I don't know I'd call it an "argument" as much as I'd call it an attempt at a summary. Some people are writing as philosophers, others are writing as teachers of philosophy. He's in "teacher" mode here. As one who likes to spend money on books, you could buy his book "Theory and Reality", which might not be a bad idea because, well, this is just my opinion, but I'd think you should first be interested in learning about the history of the philosophy of science for its own sake, rather than taking it in in pieces as it suits the needs of intellectuals needing to reconcile religion and science.

Or, I might be able to find a previous summary online. I don't know where that book is at the moment, or I'd just quote it.