July 1, 2013

Outtakes and Review of the Year

A very special episode of the podcast this week, to mark the beginning of our annual summer hiatus.

Photo: Podcast Fuel

This week is brought to you by Gordon’s Gin & Tonic (other gins are available)

For the past year, I (David) have kept a file where all the little amusing bits that didn’t make it into the weekly episodes got put. Sometimes, this was because of restraints of time, but more often they were simply too ‘scandalous’. I broadcast them here with that proviso. (I should also mention that they became far fewer when the others began to realise what I was up to…)

But before that, Chris, Louise and I got together to look back at the past year for the RSP. What have we learned? What worked and what didn’t? And we look to the future, and next year’s plans.

We’d love to hear from you, the listeners, about you liked this year, and what you’d like to see more of. Or less of. Episodes like this, for example.

We’ll be back in September. Thanks for listening.

You can also download this podcast, and subscribe to receive it weekly, on iTunes. And if you enjoyed it, please take a moment to rate us, or use our Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com link to support us when buying your important books etc.

Just to give you an idea of what the academic year 2012/13 meant for the RSP, here is a list of all the podcasts we released. Summer listening, perhaps?

You’ll find a lot more – including roundtable discussions and our weekly features essays in our archive.

Discussion


4 replies to “Outtakes and Review of the Year

  1. JDF Tuckett

    I can relate to the problem about philosophers who can’t understand that there’s more than one Truth out there. I had a lecturer fail my essay on epistemic conceptions of truth because I brought Evans-Pritchard’s study of the Azande into the discussion. Not that he wasn’t entitled to his opinion. Even though he was wrong.

    Reply

  2. Kevin Whitesides

    Differences in hermeneutics (even different hermeneutics of epistemic justification) do not make for ‘more than one Truth out there’. More than one set of ‘epistemic conceptions’, sure….but ‘more than one Truth out there’…..I remain unconvinced. Let’s not forget the ‘methodological’ aspect of ‘methodological agnosticism’. Just because our discipline is not typically understood to assess ‘truth-values’ (I would argue that we do care about them a lot, but that we usually restrict our truth-values to certain areas–e.g. accurately representing the beliefs, history, behaviors, etc. of various groups and individuals) does not mean that there are multiple Truths (you did use the capital) ‘out there’. Let’s not confuse methodology for ontology…..(or assume that our own methodology is the only proper academic lens).

    Reply

    1. Post Author David Robertson

      Although I realise the phrase (Geertz, I think) is that the discipline is methodologically agnostic, isn’t it more correct to say ontologically agnostic? By which I mean the issue is not so much how we access truth-claims, but how we analyse them. I think I agree that there aren’t necessarily “multiple truths” (if that’s what you mean), but rather that the relative truth-or-otherwise of certain claims is inaccessible, but is open to analysis and comparison.

      Reply

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *