Re: BHA: Intransivity, Rationalism

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael,

On the intransitivity of social objects we don't have any dissagreement. RB
stresses exactly the differences you raise, although Benton and Collier
advance what i think are some useful correctives to RB's view. Still,
whatever, there is no doubt that if the social world has intransitive
objects (apart from the obvious material ones in which it is embedded)
their intransitivity will require rethinking, since no humans no human
society.


On RB's rationalism  ( as you define it) i think you certainly have a
point, but RB is clear that science is not the only overridding virtue and
always has to placed in the logical space of ethical/political concerns.
Also, he does give a very strong argument in SRHE in defence of his
position which he acknowledges. I don't think this commits him to
scientitism, which i think may be suggesting, nor do i think that this
means he doesn't see the way the construction of  scientific knowledge is a
power play.


I think he accepts and acknowledges all of the things you mention, but what
he does say is that at some level, and given everything you note, and when
there is simply no further justification that can be given for science,
that one has to make one's choice and throw in one's hand with science -
presumably because of the alternatives - or is it lack of them?

Thanks,


=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---