NP no facts only interpretations

[Dave Monroe]

I've been chomping at the bit to interject something
here, but, lacking quality time ... though I did hear
my neme called here ...
 
> Newton is indeed not the best (most appropriate for
> the 21st century)
> example for a scientific truth that stands the test
> of time. The
> Wave/Particle discussion would have been better to
> be discussed by Mr.
> Bauerlein. This is a perfect example of how a
> scientific "truth" relies on
> the viewers perspective and its intentions.

If only I had the time to give these the close
readings they deserve, but ...

Beller, Mara.  Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a
   Revolution.  Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999.

Bohm, David and B.J. Hiley.  The Undivided Universe.
   New York: Routledge, 1995.

Cushing, James T.  Quantum Mechanics: Historical
   Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony.
   Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.

Norris, Christopher.  Quantum Theory and the Flight
   From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum
   Mechanics.  New York: Routledge, 2000.

... but my first approximation would be, on the scale
from social constructionsim to scientific realism, one
might arrange them thus: Beller, Cushing, Norris (?!),
Bohm and Hiley.  Anyone mention ...

Hacking, Ian.  The Social Construction of What?
   Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1999.

... which, based on past experience with Hacking,
ought to be a damn good book on the subject (whatever
it is ...).  But, as Otto notes, liber longa, vita
brevis ('zat proper Latin?  By the way, Otto, one can
spell it "travelling" OR "traveling," at least in
American English--I suspect this has to do with the
outdated practice of saving ink by using shorter
spellings [cf. "employee" vs. "employe"], but ...) ...
oh, and this was immediately inetresting ...

> I cannot see what is wrong in Eagleton's words, what
> I see is a lame attack
> on poststructuralist theory as "deconstructive
> platitudes". Bauerlein's
> topic is much to wide to be put into a small essay.
> A critical book on
> Critical Theory would give him much more opportunity
> to "prove" his
> statements.

And it appears that Mr. Bauerstein sir there might
need to do a bit more reading himself.  Terry
Eagleton, for starters, is no deconstructionist,
that's for sure, and , at any rate, one ought not rely
on a textbookish overview in order to argue with an
elaborate body of thought, not to mention writing, no?
 No.  Though I will also admit to not having raed the
Bauerstein article yet, either.  If someone would be
so kind as to repost the link ...?  Thanks ...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/