Good lecture. Daston might want to tackle chaos theory in science (her ending comment, chaos as the greatest horror), then she might revise her use of the term anarchy, which is not the terror of polities, but organization by smaller specialized communities.
The fact/value dichotomy around which this talk is organized conceptually is not sufficiently questioned philosophically here. At one point the speaker says that violating the 'naturalistic fallacy' "drives philosophers mad." She isn't speaking for, say, Dewey, Putnam or Wittgenstein among others. (See for ex., Putnam's book The Fact-Value Dichotomy). One can make careful distinctions between facts and evaluations in a great many cases; but the idea of some a priori split between fact and value, and correspondingly nature and culture has been called into question. Yet there's no discussion of alternative views on the matter even though this is part of a discussion on the place of value in nature.
Good lecture. Daston might want to tackle chaos theory in science (her ending comment, chaos as the greatest horror), then she might revise her use of the term anarchy, which is not the terror of polities, but organization by smaller specialized communities.
The fact/value dichotomy around which this talk is organized conceptually is not sufficiently questioned philosophically here. At one point the speaker says that violating the 'naturalistic fallacy' "drives philosophers mad." She isn't speaking for, say, Dewey, Putnam or Wittgenstein among others. (See for ex., Putnam's book The Fact-Value Dichotomy). One can make careful distinctions between facts and evaluations in a great many cases; but the idea of some a priori split between fact and value, and correspondingly nature and culture has been called into question. Yet there's no discussion of alternative views on the matter even though this is part of a discussion on the place of value in nature.