Real Unified Object

[Maggie Ronkin]

>require a science/discipline to present a Real Unified Object in order to
>be
>deigned a "real science."

Require or even just desire ... You might wish to look at _Concilience: The
Unity of Knowledge_ by biologist Edward O. Wilson (formerly of sociobiology
fame) ... I haven't yet.  In addition, there's mention of _Concilience_ and
discussion of Clifford Geertz's pluralism in Richard Schweder's review of
_Available Light: Reflections on Philosophical Topics_ by Geertz in
_Science_ Vol 290, 24 November 2000, pp. 1511-1512.

Maggie Ronkin


>From: Christian Nelson <cnelson at comm.umass.edu>
>To: Celso Álvarez Cáccamo <lxalvarz at udc.es>
>CC: John McCreery <mccreery at gol.com>, anthro-l at listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu,
>easianth at listserv.temple.edu, linganth at cc.rochester.edu
>Subject: Real Unified Object
>Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:23:58 -0500
>
>I wholeheartedly agree with Celso's response to John McCreery's "The End of
>Linguistics" post. Without wishing to cut off the debate on Halpern's
>article,
>I do want to tangentially pursue one aspect of Celso's response that has
>relevance for a particular project I'm working on. Celso mentions that some
>require a science/discipline to present a Real Unified Object in order to
>be
>deigned a "real science." Anybody out there have any good references to
>folks
>who express that particular point of view in unalloyed terms?
>Thanks for any help,
>Christian Nelson
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com