🚀 go-pugleaf

I am reposting this.  I changed the heading to reflect better the content of 
the current discussion, which had its roots in a discussion of feminist 
geography.

Randy Jackson

In article <2dvvlo$4e7@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjackson@magnus.acs.ohi
o-state.edu (Randy W Jackson) writes:
>In article <CHH6Iu.2Cv@rice.edu> pound@ruf.rice.edu (Christopher Brian Pound) 
w
>rites:
>>In article <2dlr5k$lkl@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjackson@magnus.acs.o
h
>io-state.edu (Randy W Jackson) writes:
>>>Of course, and I doubt that you would find anyone who would vehemently defen
d
>>>the concept of absolute objectivity.  In no way, however, does this fact ren
d
>er
>>>empirical research a fantasy.
>>
>>Right, but the problem with empiricism isn't really its objectivist tendencie
s
>>(although that's generally what you'll hear about it from someone still
>>thinking in terms of subject/object).  Empiricist approaches partake in a
>>false consciousness of the analytic that excludes any examination of the
>>social conditions in which knowledge is produced.  By "social conditions,"
>>I'm talking about a whole lot of things besides just personal bias or the
>>limits of perspective.  Frex, I'm talking about the thoroughly historicizable
>>assumption that data exist apart from the theory that explains them and that
>>the analyst can take some position outside of or blind to the work she or
>>he undertakes (obviously, the analyst can set the experiment up such that
>>she or he won't be able to influence the outcome, but in the process of
>>setting up the experiment, the kind of outcomes that will be possible are
>>necessarily "controlled").  I'm also talking about the empiricist's amnesia
>>with regard to his or her socialization as an analyst and with regard to
>>the metaphoricity on which her or his explanations of the results of the
>>experiment will necessarily hinge.  And, also, about the blind acceptance of
>>traditional categories like "theory/practice," "fact/fiction,"
>>"subject/object," "order/chaos," "knowing/being," "identity/difference,"
>>"apparent/real," "revealed/hidden," "said/seen," "self/other," and so many
>>other problematic oppositions that constitute our intellectual heritage.
>>So you see, it's not a matter of personal bias, but of the unreflexivity
>>with respect to power (authority, social status, etc.), representation
>>(truth, metaphor, simulation, etc.) and the intersections between the two.
>>That's what's really troublesome about empiricism.
>>
>
>Christopher,
>
>First, it is unfair to throw all empirically based work in geography into the
>same bag.  I will name two areas that I believe are clear exceptions to the
>kinds of generalizations you are making, and I am sure there are others.
>
>Physical geography is the most obvious exception, wherein measurement of
>characteristics of physical systems is critical.
>
>A second area is location analysis.  Locations of relevant aspects of the
>geographical landscape can be measured, and decisions based on the locations o
f
>supply and demand (or similar analogies) can be quite useful.  It is well and
>good to consider the issues you have raised, but it is of great value in the
>application of geography to problem solving to be able to inform a
>decision-maker on, for example, the m cost-minimizing locations to serve a
>particular demand area (e.g., locating emergency service facilities).
>
>Now I know that you were directing your comments primarily toward empirically
>based statistical research.  I agree that we all wear glasses of unique tints
>with which we view the world.  Yes, the data that are available for processing
>are the consequence of some individual's or group's subjective definition, and
>their accompanying definition of importance (theoretically or otherwise based)
.
>
> We are left with imperfect vision and imperfect viewing subjects.  Should we,
>therefore, abandon our attempts to see?  Even if our only goal were to
>understand the human condition better, I would not agree that we should abando
n
>data and attempts to understand relationships through empirical analysis
>(although I understand that you or others might).
>
>There is a society around us that, either through private sources or through
>the political system (and rightly or wrongly), is starved and eager for
>information on which to base decisions.  Therefore, we have two choices:
>
>1) We can ask them to wait while we attempt to understand better the effects o
f
>socialization on our approach to research, the problematic oppositions that
>constitute our intellectual heritage, and the other aspects of empirical
>research that trouble you so.  [I suppose that instead of asking them to wait,
>we could just offer society an explanation of why such guidance can't be
>provided.]
>
>2)  We can forge ahead with the information (data) available to us, and attemp
t
>to assist society in its efforts to move ahead, bearing in mind the
>imperfections of our data and analytical tools.
>
>Many choose the former tack, and bask in the comfort that comes from knowing
>their hands haven't been tainted by socially constructed (and therefore
>imperfect) data.  Others choose, however, to work in the dirty, empirically
>based world, with colleagues who are willing to risk offering society
>information that comes from an analysis of data.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>/  Randy Jackson, Assoc. Prof. /\  Geography, OSU             \
>|  1152 Derby,154 No. Oval     ][  Columbus, Ohio 43210-1361  |
>
>\__614 292-7998________________\/__INTERNET: jackson+@osu.edu /
>
>>Christopher Pound  +    "Homer deserves to be thrown out of the
>>Anthro Grad Student     +     contests and flogged."
>>pound@rice.edu          +                           -- Heraclitus