Re: BHA: negativity wins

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
>
> Dear Carrol
>
> Well, all I can say is that it is has been pretty much a commonplace in
> the philosophy of science since Kuhn.
>
I know -- precisely a commonplace. Any difference can be _called_ a
discontinuity. But I cannot for the life of me see what is gained by
calling changes _paradigm_ changes. Now when the day comes when the
concept of "the individual" is as foreign to the imagination (when
Milton's PL is even more 'alien' than Odysseus' choice of _oikos_ over
immortality) -- _that_ will be a paradigm change.

> Bhaskar contrasts this position with a 'monistic' one - he's not saying
> that there is no continuity, rather that there is radical discontinuity
> as well as continuity.
>
> What a positivist you seem to be!

I assume that 'positivism' is the assumption that truth is in the facts
rather than the relations. If so, I'm not a positivist.

Carrol
>
> Mervyn
>
> Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> writes
> >
> >
> >Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
> >>
> >>  (4) - and the warrant
> >> for this is 'discontinuism' in science ie the fact of scientific
> >> revolutions.
> >
> >
> >I see this taken for granted in numerous different contexts, but it has
> >never made any sense to me. I see the slow & halting _appearance_ of
> >science from 16th through the 19th centuries, and I see various lurches
> >fwd as earlier advances (e.g. gravity or natural selection)are placed in
> >wider contexts. But it simply appears to be sloppy diction to call any
> >of these changes "revolutions." Like the pepsi generation or the mini
> >skirt revolutions.
> >
> >Carrol
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> --
> Mervyn Hartwig
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---