Reddit mentions of Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate (Pittsburgh Series in Philosophy and History of Science)

> there is also the possibility to disclose to students (and professors) their interpretations, differences, or even existence.

What the... ...hell? I could disclose to students their existence?

> analytic philosophy’s ahistorical and technical method

I think the vast number of people working on the history of philosophy in analytic philosophy departments might have some trouble with this. Try asking any of the faculties at PGR-rated programs in ancient, medieval, 17th-century early modern, 18th-century early modern, Kant, or history of analytic philosophy.

> prominent analytic philosophers such as Gottlob Frege, Alfred Tarski, George E. Moore, Rudolf Carnap, and Wilfred V. O. Quine

I like how "prominent analytic philosophers" stop in the 1950s. Precisely one of the most important developments since then has been, for those of you keeping score at home, the fall of logical positivism, and with it the return of the history of philosophy. But no matter facts, we've got a polemic to run, and some Being to discuss.

> As we can see, analytic philosophy’s “imperialistic approach” shows an interest in establishing a descriptive, obedient, and universal civilization where “no theoretical work, no literary work, no philosophical work, can receive worldwide legitimation without crossing the [United] States, without being first legitimized in the States.”

What the hell does this even mean?

> the ethical consequence of science

The eight or ten of my colleagues (just within my department, not to mention the rest of the research tradition in science and values) who work on the ethics and values of science would probably dispute this.

> frequently, not given a chance to explore the history of philosophy in depth

Intro courses all over the U.S. start with Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant... I'm beginning to think the problem isn't that analytics don't do history, it's that they don't do the kind of history that this guy likes -- no, we don't read much Derrida or Hegel or Heidegger (talk about a good way to confuse the hell out of an undergraduate).

> of the kind of Being which is constituted by the existentiale of projection, Dasein is constantly “more” than it factually is, supposing that one might want to make an inventory of it as something objectively present and list the contents of its Being, and supposing that one were able to do so.

Ah, yeah, my undergrads would totally understand that.

What an utter crock of garbage.