Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:34:13.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Webs of Belief or Practices: the Problem of Understanding*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2011

Stephen P. Turner
Stephen P. Turner*
Affiliation:
University of South Florida [[email protected]]
Get access

Extract

ObjectivityandThere is No Such Thingas a Social Science make an odd pair: one is a substantive historical discussion of a philosophical concept central to philosophy and to scientific practice and debate which provides an explanation of the history of the development and changes in the concept; the other is a defense of a philosophical position which in effect denies that any such explanation is possible, and attacks “the craving for explanation” as a philosophical disease whose major symptom is social science itself. Galison and Daston, the authors of Objectivity, are historians of science whose approach is connected to the “social study of science” without explicitly adopting any of its methodological theses. But in taking on the concept of objectivity they go to the philosophical heart of the scientific enterprise itself.

Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , December 2010 , pp. 403 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Winch, Peter, 1958, and with a new Introduction 1990, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press).Google Scholar

2 Davidson, Donald, [1973]1984, “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 183-198).Google Scholar

3 Winch, [1958] 1990, (p. 107).

4 Dilman, Ilham, 2004, “Wittgenstein and the Question of Linguistic Idealism”, in McManus, D., ed., Wittgenstein and Scepticism (London, Routledge, 2004, p. 176).Google Scholar

5 Dilman, 2004, p. 172.

6 Winch [1958] 1990, p. 100.

7 Winch, [1958] 1990, p. 101.

8 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 195.

9 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 11.

10 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 11.

11 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 13.

12 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 16.

13 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 16.

14 Daston and Galison, 2007, p. 16.

15 Davidson Donald, [1973] 1984, “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”.

16 Wes, Sharrock and Read, Rupert, 2002 Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution, (Cambridge, Polity).Google Scholar

17 Hutchinson, et al., 2008.

18 Sharrock and Read, 2002, p. 168.

19 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 43.

20 Brian R., Wilson, ed., 1970, Rationality (New York/London, Harper & Row);Google ScholarMartin, Hollis and Lukes, Steven, eds., Rationality and Relativism, 1982 (Cambridge,, MIT Press).Google Scholar

21 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 99.

22 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 120.

23 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 122.

24 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 120.

25 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 120.

26 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 120, n. 12, emphasis in the original.

27 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 135.

28 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 135.

29 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 134.

30 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 134; Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 135, Hutchinsonet al., 2008, pp. 42-67.

31 Theodore, Schatzki, “Elements of a Wittgensteinian Philosophy of the Human Sciences”, Synthese 87, 1991, pp. 311-29Google Scholar; Theodore, Schatski, 1996, Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social (New York, Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar. Cf. Theodore, Schatzki, Knorr Centina, Karin, and Von Savigny, Eike, 2001 eds., The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (London, Routledge).Google Scholar

32 For the most part attitudes that Schatzki never had.

33 Winch, Peter, 1990 “Preface to the Second Edition”, in The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, (Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press), p. xii.Google Scholar

34 Davidson, Donald, 2004, “The Objectivity of Values”, in Problems of Rationality (Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 52).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 G. E. M., Anscombe, 1957, Intention, (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar

36 Anscombe, 1957, (p. 46, para. 26).

37 This account of Wittgenstein is discussed in Henderson, David, “Wittgenstein’s Descriptivist Approach to Understanding: Is There a Place for Explanation in Interpretive Accounts”, 1988, Dialectica 42(2), pp. 105-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Winch Peter, 1990, “Preface to the Second Edition” (p. x).

39 Hutchinsonet al., 2008, p. 39.

40 Winch, “Preface to the Second Edition” (p. x)

41 Ilham, Dilman, 2002, Wittgenstein’s Copernican Revolution: The Question of Linguistic Idealism (Basingstoke, Palgrave, p. 110).Google Scholar

42 Peter, Winch, 1995, “Discussion of Malcolm’s Essay,” in Malcolm, NormanWittgenstein: A Religious Point of View, (London, Routledge, p. 106).Google Scholar

43 Peter, Winch [1964] 1974, “Understanding a Primitive Society” in B. R., Wilson., ed., Rationality (Oxford, Blackwell, 93Google Scholar; emphasis added).

44 Ludwig, Wittgenstein, [1953] 1958, Philosophical Investigations 3rdedn., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M. (New York, The Macmillan Company, p. 165, para. 647).Google Scholar

45 Winch, [1958] 1990, p. 85, emphasis in the original.

46 Anscombe, 1957, (p.5, para. 2-3).

47 David, Rubenstein, 2004, Language Games and Natural Reactions”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 34 (1), pp. 55-72.Google Scholar

48 Martin, Kusch, 2006, A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules: Defending Kripke’s Wittgenstein (Chesham, UK, Acumen)Google Scholar; Miller Alexander and Crispin Wright, eds. 2002, Rule-Following and Meaning (Chesham, Acumen,).