Comments on: Science as Polemic

By: Why your students need to take statistics » ThickCulture

Why your students need to take statistics » ThickCulture — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:55:43 +0000

[...] it is because we fail to treat statistics as a discourse. I may have enchantment on the brain (see Brian Rasmussen’s and Don Waisenan’s posts), but it seems like our imbue statistics with an mystical, [...]

By: And that’s the double truth, Ruth « 53 degrees

And that’s the double truth, Ruth « 53 degrees — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:10:01 +0000

[...] the double truth, Ruth I am getting a lot of personal intellectual mileage out of this post by Bryan Rasmussen over on thickculture. It is part of the Contexts.org stable of ‘blogs that includes one of my [...]

By: Eoin O'Mahony

Eoin O'Mahony — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:55:20 +0000

“vulnerable to their own normative claims when they are “no longer conscious of the ends they serve.”” Hmmm…Dawkins as Oppenheimer? Anyone?

Thanks for the references, lots of reading to be done. It would seem though that to dissociate a general theory of secularisation from general processes of scientism (or indeed rationalism) so deeply embedded in western modes of thought as to make it next or near impossible.

“the languages by which we have come to understand the contest for the center of public life.” Perhaps, but if you consider how broadly that centre is defined by all occupants and then how narrowly it can be occupied by those who dislike it, you have a problem. The centre does not hold etc. Just some Monday morning thoughts.

By: Bryan B. Rasmussen

Bryan B. Rasmussen — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:33:56 +0000

Right. It’s these normative claims of social science that are often denied (or that go unrecognized) by social scientists. Gertrude Lenzer wrote that scientists are particularly vulnerable to their own normative claims when they are “no longer conscious of the ends they serve.”

By: Bryan B. Rasmussen

Bryan B. Rasmussen — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:28:07 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Eoin. The Dawkins/Hitchens machine is particularly relevant in this context, I think. In particular because they seem to thrive and capitalize on the very culture of fundamentalist polarization that they criticize (I’m certainly not the first to point this out). In their case, I think “polemic” would indeed be the right word. Staking out a position comes at the expense of dialogue. Just in terms of the rhetorical nature of this sort of reasoning, though, there’s an interesting piece, also in the Chronicle, on Heidegger that employs similar argumentative tactics against Heidegger–the idea being that ridicule is the only reasonable response to a perceived injustice: http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/

I’m no rhetorician, but it seems one of the real issues in public debates about religion is the status of language and argument as more than rhetoric–as something like an ontology.

By: jose

jose — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:00:45 +0000

Nice Post Bryan! This post reminds me of Boltanski and Thevenot’s work on discourses of legitimation (On Justification). In various ways, social science tries to make “worthiness” claims (expertise, neutrality, etc.) It’s important to hold it up as one of a set of important discourses rather than as the sole vestige of civil society.

By: Westoxicated: The Public Sphere of Iran « Religion and Secularism

Westoxicated: The Public Sphere of Iran « Religion and Secularism — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:22:04 +0000

[...] Thick Culture blog on thesocietypages.org has an interesting commentary on Kurzman’s writing. Bryan Rasmussen spends his time here drawing [...]

By: Eoin O'Mahony

Eoin O'Mahony — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:50:21 +0000

Bryan, thanks for putting this together so succinctly. Connolly’s constipating effects is occurring in other places as well where to take a position means you must defend it. From Habermas’s visit to Iran and the questions asked of him, there’s a yearning for something other than the Dawkins v. Armstrong trope we are getting at the moment in this part of the world.