[D-G] Universe of Reference in Sciences ( the event of Isabelle Stengers? )

[Bougredâne Bougredandouille]

first:
HI to All,

Marine, you are probably becoming an idiot, my distressed naughty girl!!
look on how you now seem confusing again Popper's normativity with
"demarcationism" :
Normativity in Sciences is-- for Popper-- the epistemological impossibility
to reduce Science to Logic
so much so that the Epistemologist cannot provide the Scientist with ANY
(eternal) method as to how to "make Science"
the Epistemologist is reduced to describing Sciences throughout  History,
the  becoming of truth, the  evolution in Sciences :as in <<Invention des
sciences modernes>> p57:
"La science célèbre le franchissement d'un seuil à partir duquel *il est
impossible de ne pas reconnaître* que l'acteur central de l'évolution
(est...) le problème objectif,
habitant du troisième monde"
Félix Guattari lauded in Chaosmose (1992) Prigogine and Stengers' own
appeal in "Time and Eternity(1988)"to "new modes" of informally approaching
Science's description, this because Félix was interested in how "common
objectivity" in its Historical description is being tested by Science in
the latter relation to something defying the test of Judgment from the
Present to the Past, something defying the way the Historian of Science
would "normally" study Science like the Art historian studies Artists and
their psychology towards the medium of their times: somehow the history of
Science is not only the Logic of past events: it relates to Something
defying the Historian, still insisting in the community of the Present
Intempestive: something coming from the phenomenal field and which insists
in the Intempestive contemporaneity of the historian describer.
the Epistemologist becomes an Historian of Science in that regard, but yet,
she has to become capable to raise the problem, in a way, she has to become
a searcher herself, facing something, defying her coming ..
from the Phenomenal Field:
actually so Popper is NOT a Normativist, and Isabelle Stengers shows us
why..

whereas to demarcationism, it is simply meant to tell us how Science when
it wants to describes itself through a Normative agenda
and poses itself as "simply" different from non-Science, makes it "only"
something more valid in some respects to any manny other things, like Art
or Witchcraft for instance,..

you must not be confusing the two Marine! Normativity and demarcationism
are two different concepts!

i must leave you now, sorry my naughty girl, i am about to be lurkin'
around from now, once again, & byebye everyone!

Bougre d'âne







Le lun. 8 mars 2021 à 01:11,  Marine DaughterOfthePirate <
marine.daughter.of.pirate at gmail.com>   a écrit :

> hey Dewey!
>
> (sorry for my English!)
> what interests me most with Isabelle is how
> the question of politics is tackled:
> she continuously has referred to an "approche politique" as different to
> "politics" themselves (and the phenomenal field of opinions in the greek
> polis)
> is that not astonishing, once considered her Popperian normative
> background?
> she is retired now, but still working at the GECO I have heard?
> (the historian of Sciences is following the activity of setting the
> problems by the actors of the " experimental terrain", isn't it?)
>
> best,
> yes, let's talk more often!
> Marine
>
> Le lun. 8 mars 2021 à 00:55, Dewey Dell <dewey.dell5 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>>  hya Johnatan, (and other Brussels' friends & +Spoon DG List junkies..)
>>
>> long time not seeing/hearing from you: how are you today actually?
>>
>> i am currently studying Isabelle Stengers' <<l' invention des
>> Sciences Modernes>> written in 1993/1994
>>
>> i was at the start abit taken astray by the power of the signifiers in
>> Popper's 3 Worlds
>>
>> now after humour and irony
>> after a detour by Alan Chalmers (cute dude), Lakatos "program de
>> recherche"
>> and Kuhn's incommensurability: between Newton and Einstein,
>> she now is exploring with more Humour: the event of *Science*, how
>> scientists
>> are Repeatedly asking the Event to making "a difference" making it
>> possible
>> to validate the question "*Is this Scientific*?"
>> and how the mise en scène is subjected by the Irony of those (relativists)
>> who want not to see the difference
>> but favour instead a "Return of the Same" indecisiveness. (in short a bit
>> like Feyeraband they say Science is guilty of a certain cultural vue de
>> l'esprit, and *That* is ironic she says).
>>
>> She describes the advent of Galileo and this turns more and more (in me)
>> in tune
>> with the detective novel of Deleuze and Guattari consequences...
>>
>> let's keep in touch!
>>
>> Dewey xx
>>
>