If you reply to this long (12 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
In response to my post "Re: Physicist Steven Weinberg's Essay
'AGAINST PHILOSOPHY'"[Hake (2012)], physicist Calvin Kalman (2012)
wrote [bracketed by lines "KKKKK. . . ."; slightly edited so as to
place *academic* references in the REFERENCE list at the end of this
post; my insert at ". . . . [[insert]]. . . . .":
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
I am afraid that Richard Hake has no idea about hermeneutics. . . .
[[And I'm afraid that Calvin Kalman has no idea of the weaknesses of
hermeneutic analyses as cogently set forth by philosopher Denis
Phillips (2000) in Chapter 2 "Hermeneutics and Naturalistic Social
Inquiry" of "Expanded Social Scientist's Bestiary: A Guide to Fabled
Threats to, and Defenses of, Naturalistic Social Science," a small
part of which was included in my *complete* post (Hake, 2012 at
<http://bit.ly/xupPFH> (probably either unread or dismissed by
Kalman)]]. . . . . Although the subject originated in bible study,
it has come a long way since then. The modern theory of hermeneutics
developed by Gadamer (1977)]. . . . .
[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Gadamer>]]. . . .
based upon notions put forth by his teacher Heidegger. . . . .
[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger>]]. . . . .
Gadamer argued that it is through language that the world is opened
up for us. Weinberg's point and Gale's and Wittgenstein's have
nothing to do with science educational research. Indeed Gadamer would
agree with them. He felt that hemeneutics actually provided a
demarcation between the human sciences (psychology, social sciences
and education). . . .[[did Kalman mean: (a) between the human
sciences (psychology, social sciences, and education) using the
Harvard serial comma as advised by the American Institute of Physics
Style Manual, (b) "between the human sciences (psychology, social
sciences) and education"; (c) "between the human sciences
(psychology, social sciences, and education) and natural science";
(d) some other; (e) none of the above. ??]]. . . .
The physicist who wrote the most on Hermeneutics and science
education is Martin Eger (deceased). . . . . All of his articles are
reprinted in "Science, Understanding, and Justice: The Philosophical
Essays of Martin Eger" [Eger (2006)]. I reprinted one of his articles
in my book "Successful Science and Engineering Teaching: Theoretical
and Learning Perspectives" [Kalman (2008)].
Eger argued that hermeneutics was an ideal tool in science education.
Indeed I have made use of hermeneutics as particularly described in
two articles.
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Although it may be true that Gadamer would agree with Weinberg, Gale,
and Wittgenstein that philosophy is of marginal interest to
contemporary practicing scientists, it would appear that Eger might
not. On page 4 Eger wrote:
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
. . . for the most part, whether in research or in teaching, a
CONSCIOUSLY HERMENEUTIC ORIENTATION IS RECOMMENDED ONLY FOR THE
SOCIAL OR HUMAN SCIENCES. GADAMER AND HABERMAS MAKE THIS RESTRICTION
EXPLICIT [2] . . .[[My CAPS]]. . . [2] Others, especially those
dealing with education, imply much the same thing, or, by speaking
very generally, merge their hermeneutic views with the broad stream
of humanistically based educational critique.
It is appropriate to ask, therefore, to what extent hermeneutics is
relevant also to *natural* science and its study. So far, in this
realm, it has received little attention. Despite the efforts of a few
lonely philosophers, and friendly nods from scientists here and
there, the very thought of bringing hermeneutics into something like
physics seems both pointless and distasteful. [3]. Historically,
after all, hermeneutics was supposed to *distinguish* between the two
types of research. The idea was (and *still* is) that while the
humanities and social sciences may need a language-oriented
interpretive approach, the natural sciences do not [4]; and the
reason they do not is the very thing that makes them successful. . .
. . . . . . . . .
Nevertheless, I would like to present programmatially the case for
hermeneutics in the *appropriation of natural science* - that is,
in every kind of presentation, study, and understanding of what a
particular science is saying to us. The argument is based on three
major points; first that despite deeply rooted opposition to such an
idea, the mutual resemblance and parallel evolution of
historical-literary hermeneutics on the one hand and philosophy of
science on the other is striking enough to suggest that, in some
general but important sense, SCIENCE ITSELF IS A FORM OF
HERMENEUTICS. . . .[[my CAPS]]. . . .; second, that the branch of
hermeneutics called "ontological" seems especially appropriate to
science because it makes possible the formulation of the most basic
questions concerning the relation of the student to the objects of
study, questions that lie at the center of at least two problem areas
where controversies are now taking place - constructivism and the
feminist critique; finally that whatever may be the place of
hermeneutics in professional research (science as inquiry), in the
cultural-educative realm (science as knowledge) the issue is
fundamentally different and the case here much stronger; for in
education it is not nature itself but a *language of nature* that one
encounters initially.
For footnotes [2,3,4] see pages 471- 472 of Eger (2006)
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 04 Dec 2011; most shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
Eger, M. 2006. "Science, Understanding, and Justice: The
Philosophical Essays of Martin Eger," edited by Abner Shimony. Open
Court, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/xD3m3y>. (Note the
positive comment by Noretta Koertge
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noretta_Koertge>). Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/znLsoR>, note the searchable "Look
Inside" feature.
Gadamer, H-G. 1994. "Truth and method." Continuum, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/wdFyic>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/xaWgwN>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
An expurgated Google book preview is online at <http://bit.ly/w7Ylz6>.
Hake, R.R. 2012. "Physicist Steven Weinberg's Essay 'AGAINST
PHILOSOPHY' (was 'References for Hermeneutics of Physics'), " online
on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/xupPFH>. Post of 20
Feb 2012 16:48:24-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link
to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion lists and
are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/zWfVlX> with a
provision for comments.
Kalman, C. "Re: Physicist Steven Weinberg's Essay 'AGAINST
PHILOSOPHY'," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/zfHHFT> post of 21 Feb 2012 to Phys-L and PhysLrnR.
Kalman, C.S. 2008. "Successful Science and Engineering Teaching:
Theoretical and Learning Perspectives" Springer, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/nVcHxv>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/yYW01P>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded Social Scientist's Bestiary: A Guide
to Fabled Threats to, and
Defenses of, Naturalistic Social Science." Rowman & Littlefield;
publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/w5QZQQ>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/xg7cCT>. An expurgated Google book preview is online
at <http://bit.ly/ADoIKx>. Regarding this book: (a) Philosopher Paul
Meehl <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Meehl> wrote: "Should be
required reading for all Ph.D. candidates in social science. It is a
mind clearing analysis of the highest order, prophylactic and
curative of the numerous methodological and substantive ills that
afflict us. It is especially needed today when the
'positivist-bashers' are using the Vienna Circle's mistakes and
Kuhn's exaggerations for obscurantist purposes." (b) Philosopher
Michael Scriven <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scriven> wrote:
"This is the most intelligent and learned critique of social science
methodology in existence. It is a preview of the view now
increasingly being adopted by philosophers of science and
sophisticated methodologists within the sciences. Do not fail to read
and understand it if interested in the methodology of the social
sciences."