I’ve read a lot of Rorty, but I don’t recall him saying he was happy with bad science. can you provide a quotation?
You said: “I’m guessing the next move is to go back to positivistic and quantitative empiricism to secure the “scientific” status and “pragmatic” success of economics. I.e. the word “pragmatic” is just a way to sneek the positivism and crude empiricism back in through the side door.” I hope not, I’m a pragmatist but I would strongly oppose that move. You said: “Where is the evidence that Rorty identified economics as a science, and on what grounds.” I was under the impression that Rorty did not draw this kind of sharp distinction between different intellectual disciplines. Rather he argued that they all were involved in the same sort of intellectual pursuit—trying to convince others of their point of view. And also that it was misleading to view some fields as “objective” and other fields as “subjective.” On the question of philosophical influence, I can’t speak for Rorty but I would draw a distinction between logic (correlation doesn’t prove causation) and grand theories about what co
Related Questions
- I’ve read the Superintendent’s message regarding financial issues. Will potential reductions apply just to schools or will they apply to central administration as well?
- I’ve read all the explanations for Pranic Healing, BUT I still don’t get it. Can’t you explain it in ordinary life terms?
- I’ve heard that Suzuki students don’t read music, is that true?
