Everyone is ,in fact, partisan.

Where are examples of social scientists who are thoroughly partisan, openly and honestly so? They are almost all Marxists who confess a commitment to the working class and acknowledge that their preferred policies would be injurious to properties groups in society. Among mainstream social scientists and social researchers are many who are often called partisan-Milton Friedman, for example. But almost all of them, Friedman included, see themselves as nonpartisan, as speaking for everyone's best interests. If my argument is correct, they are deceiving themselves, and, if we believe them, they are also deceiving us. They are also distorting their research. If there are many partisan non-Marxist social scientists and social researchers who are trying to follow such a prescription as mine for thoughtfully acknowledged partisanship, not many of them have yet come out of the closet. -Charles E. Lindblom, from Who Needs What Social Research for Policymaking?


by corwin | 2009/09/07 09:59 | 트랙백(1) | 덧글(0)
트랙백 주소 : http://corwin.egloos.com/tb/4228695
☞ 내 이글루에 이 글과 관련된 글 쓰기 (트랙백 보내기) [도움말]
Tracked from 내 친구의 집은 어디인가? at 2009/10/21 03:08

제목 : 투기디데스는 진실을 말했나
투기디데스는 진실을 말했나. 투기디데스가 어떤 의도를 가지고 역사를 서술했기 때문에 객관적이고 정확한 역사를 서술했다고 볼 수 없다고 본, 케이건은 자신이 새로 역사를 서술했지만, 그 역시 아테네의 학살 장면을 의도적으로 회피하여 객관적인 역사 서술에 실패했다. 그러나, 이런 것은 당연한 것이다. 세상에 완전히 객관적인 사람은 없다.Everyone is ,in fact, partisan. 따라서, 객관적인 것 같은 역사를 들여다 볼 때도 ......more

:         :

:

비공개 덧글