0001 Jack Reynolds, Professor in Arts and Education at Deakin University, publishes a book with the subtitle, “A Hybrid and Heretical Proposal”. The book concerns two views that seem to resist hybridization: phenomenology and naturalism. Why? Does each regard the other as heretical?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plus, where does that leave science?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hmmm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
0002 Razie Mah examines Reynolds’ book in Comments on Jack Reynolds’ Book (2018) “Phenomenology, Naturalism and Science”<\/em>, available at smashwords and other e-book vendors. The commentary is part of a series, “Phenomenology and the Positivist Intellect”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0003 Phenomenology has an awkward relationship with science. It situates hands-on natural science. Yet, it competes for that role with visionary science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Visionary science takes what is most precious to practicing scientists, the empirio-schematic judgment,<\/em> and unfolds it into a situation-level nested form<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Phenomenology competes with and excludes visionary science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0004 Consequently, phenomenologists and visionary scientists despise one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both work to situate hands-on natural science, represented as a content-level nested form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each offers its own situation-level nested form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0005 Perhaps, this is why Reynolds’ proposal directs attention away from the point of contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hands-on science is naturalism. Hands-on science may be portrayed as the unfolding of the Positivist’s judgment into the content-level of an interscope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Phenomenology and visionary science situate first-order natural science in very different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0006 Phenomenology wants to consider phenomena in order to elucidate\u00a0what the thing itself<\/em>\u00a0must be.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Visionary science wants to take an established scientific model and coronate it as\u00a0what the thing itself must be<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0001 Jack Reynolds, Professor in Arts and Education at Deakin University, publishes a book with the subtitle, “A Hybrid and Heretical Proposal”. The book concerns two views that seem to resist hybridization: phenomenology and naturalism. Why? Does each regard the other as heretical? Plus, where does that leave science? Hmmm. 0002 Razie Mah examines Reynolds’ book in Comments on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187],"tags":[39,206,205,208,184,179,209,190,207],"class_list":["post-5245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-phenomenology","tag-category-based-nested-form","tag-natural-science","tag-naturalism","tag-noumena","tag-phenomena","tag-phenomenology","tag-positivists-judgment","tag-social-science","tag-traidic-structure-of-judgment"],"yoast_head":"\n