Re: BHA: negativity wins

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

> Dear Carrol
>
> Well, all I can say is that it is has been pretty much a commonplace in
> the philosophy of science since Kuhn.
>
> 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!
>
> Mervyn

It seems to me that it is best to make a distinction between (A) the
_emergence_ of modern science (made possible by the transition from
the world before capitalism to the capitalist world) and (B)
theoretical changes _within_ modern science.  Calling both (A) & (B)
"paradigm changes" a la Kuhn _obliterates_ the aforementioned
distinction, that is to say, the _specificity_ of capitalism as a
mode of production (& the ideological condition that goes with it);
in other words, the effect of Kuhn's argument is to obscure the
specificity of what capitalism is.

Is there anything in Bhaskar's theory that invalidates the
distinction between (A) and (B)?  Given Bhaskar's emphasis on
emergence as an important concept, I rather think that it is more
consonant with Bhaskar's philosophy of science to make the
distinction.

Yoshie


    --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---