The short answer to this question is that it is contained in the two-volume, 1600-page magnum opus - another one - just published by Jürgen Habermas. A translation of the table of contents is to be found here: https://amsterdam-adorno.net/OMHP.html
General background, plus bibliographies, can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Critical-Theory-Frankfurt-School-Archive-CTFSA
1. Scholarly programs that have, as their central purpose, the ‘contextualization’ of science and mathematics have a pedigree going back to at least the querelle des Anciens et des Modernes of the 17th Century, though for more recent times the ‘go to’ name is Hegel. No doubt, for the foreseeable future, it is going to be Habermas. Objective knowledge, in the eponymous Popper title, is nothing ‘subjective’, nothing to do with individual or collective narrative, it cannot be reduced to someone’s opinion. (Which is why Popper once introduced the distinction: ‘context of validity/context of discovery’ into these discussions.) From Biographies of e.g. Watson and Crick we expect insight into that ‘Eureka’ moment when they hit upon the double helix, but the certitude of the knowledge that biological reproduction is based on the transmission of genetic material - and that the molecular structure that makes this possible has this unique (for Darwin completely unknown) form - cannot be ‘relativized’ in any way by recourse to anyone’s narrative. So, there’s something about that process in which certain knowledge is first ‘discovered’ or ‘generated’ or 'created' that’s worth focusing on if we want to understand why in so many other aspects of our lives everything is heatedly disputed, rubbished, attacked, put in question, dismissed, ridiculed, or even their proponents physically assaulted or worse. That too is as old as the faith/reason dichotomy first opening up in the West after Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, and in today’s world this has sharpened to the extent that there’s now a full-scale constitutional crisis in both the US and the UK. (In what sense what we're seeing now is the result of a faith/reason 'dialectic': that's the point of this book, making this plausible. Not as a 'theory', but as the basis for a vision of how to go forward from now; what to expect for the future. Not to mention that this has some influence of how we personally comport ourselves, in these difficult times.)
Many systems have a property known as "criticality".If state of system changes enormously given small input, a system is critical.To know and understand of such behavior, we need to introduce some new concepts-theories i.e. the theory of critical phenomena..
Many systems have a property known as "criticality".If state of system changes enormously given small input, a system is critical.To know and understand of such behavior, we need to introduce some new concepts-theories i.e. the theory of critical phenomena..
What you raise will become, no doubt, a central issue as the debate progresses: those coming to this from a natural science/technology background are used to defining their own terms. That's not the case for philosophy. 'Critical' in this context invokes, directly, Kant. If you miss that you will have difficulty in understanding this book, or this entire literature. (Though I concede right away that there's a weakness to this argument of mine: 'go read the book' or 'the literature' is always unconvincing in a debate. I haven't figured out how to get beyond that yet.)
People with a science/technology background are used to a certain procedure: 'here are the facts, now let's see how to extrapolate from the data, what sort of models, hypotheses, are plausible here, how are we going to test all this experimentally, do we have any idea yet what the implications for practice, production, so on could be.' Philosophers have this very different approach, and it irritates everyone else endlessly: what do we mean when we say 'cat', when we say 'mat'. There's a very different logic of argumentation there. In a word: philosophers think historically, they presuppose a longue durée.
Though when one actually gets into the topics themselves, it's less trivial than this example suggests. There's a 'critique' of Darwinism (or of evolutionism, functionalism), there's a 'critique' of Marx, there's a 'critique' of the modern media industry. I've been trying my hand at a 'critique' of empiricism for a while here, on this forum devoted to Darwin (with very little success, it must be said, but then 'critique' of this type is not for the impatient): https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_believe_in_the_Theory_of_Evolution
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning