tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post2734501371020541283..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: European philosophy of social scienceDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-34661712191498024822012-06-02T08:03:18.450-04:002012-06-02T08:03:18.450-04:00Dear T&P, Thanks! I've set the access/edit...Dear T&P, Thanks! I've set the access/edit permissions to "public", so you should be able to add points and modify current links. Let me know if you have a problem. DanDan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-36563746252592820042012-05-29T10:46:05.532-04:002012-05-29T10:46:05.532-04:00Good work on the Google map. If you give me permis...Good work on the Google map. If you give me permission I can make the links clickable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-29399633746188404532012-05-10T15:47:26.480-04:002012-05-10T15:47:26.480-04:00Could you clarify more on how they are making prog...Could you clarify more on how they are making progress? My early social science experiences were working with behaviorists who proved to me that "clarity, logical rigor, analysis, and causality" are no proof of validity. However, it was not until I studied the psychometrician Samuel Messick that I was able to make a cogent distinction between anti-positivism and post-positivism, that is, seriously dealing with the limitations of positivism without abandoning their achievements. That is how I have begun to view Rorty and Wittgenstein (Though I would be the last to claim I "understand" Wittgenstein or Rorty for that matte; to use their ideas appropriately is my objective). This Wittgesteinian approach seems like what Neil Gross is doing from your previous posts concerning Richard Rorty as well as Camic, Gross and Lamont. Is this also true of this new European school of thought.<br />P.S. Thanks for referencing Gross's 2009 book. I think it may be a fascinating study.Howard Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09426998835138855839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-88392650888444351072012-05-10T07:24:31.198-04:002012-05-10T07:24:31.198-04:00I wonder why you so easily dismiss critical approa...I wonder why you so easily dismiss critical approaches to the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Of course, analytic philosophy has many desirable features, but there are many interesting challanges to the analytical approach coming from the "classic" European school (as you call it). In particular scholars like Habermas have shown the possibility of fruitfull discourse between analytic and continental philosophy that is both clear and rigorous. Take for example http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5804&mode=toc or http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262083183/ref=rdr_ext_tmb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com