RE: BHA: Epistemological relativism

["Marshall M. A. Feldman" <Marsh@xxxxxxx>]

Marko,

The difficulty I'm having with this discussion is that we seem to be talking
past each other. I think part of this has to do with the nature of critical
realism itself. CR is not anti-science. Neither is it post-modern, in the
sense it claims that everything is just a social construction, devoid of a
reality outside itself. So much of the time you seem to be reading into what
I say things that I never said.

So let's take another tack, shall we? We have been discussing the relation
between knowledge, which is distinctly human, and the reality outside human
knowledge. You seem to want to conflate them. However, much of the exchange
has ranged widely, so that we don't stay focused on the original question.
Let's go back to it. It seems to me that the issues you raise have been
addressed adequately by Bhaskar in two ways. First, he points out the
fallacy in confusing human knowledge with the reality outside human
knowledge. This is the epistemic fallacy. Second, he distinguishes between
the transitive and intransitive dimensions of science.

It seems to me these two aspects of Bhaskar's theory solve the problems you
discuss. If you disagree, why?

	Marsh Feldman

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marko
Beljac
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:08 AM
To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BHA: Epistemological relativism





> Skyscrapers exist. But not in of themselves. They exist because we exist
> and we have a biological nature which enables them to exist. Therefore
> architecture must reduce to biology...


>
> An another.
>
> Skyscrapers exist. But not in of themselves. They exist because bricks
> exist
> and bricks have a physical nature which enables them to exist.
> While humans may put bricks in place and even may make bricks, bricks
> themselves consist
> of materials independent of biology. Therefore architecture must reduce to
> materials science.

If the laws of physics were different we would still exist and and so could
skyscrapers? I don't think so.

=> Who said anything about the laws of physics being different?

>
> The last two reductions contradict each other. Yet the premises are true
in
> each case. Therefore the basic structure of the argument itself is flawed.

This is of course false. Biology does ultimately reduce to materials
science.

=> Can you give us some references that support this claim? I just don't see
it. Perhaps you could outline how physiology, for example, can be derived
from materials science. When I studied materials science as an
undergraduate, we discussed things like metals, concrete, and silicon, but
never anything that had been alive.


 But anyway what is a brick? I have yet to come across naturally
occuring bricks. To my knoweledge, perhaps I am naive, bricks are made by
us. If we accept the above argument then bricks are naturally occuring
material entities that self assemble according to the laws of physics. I
have yet to come across that law, perhaps I should socially construct one.

=> In Quito, Ecuador you can see buildings made out of blocks that were cut
from naturally occurring stone. I suppose I should not have called them
bricks. Nobody said they self-assemble.

=> But remember in place of buildings, you said "social entities." A
building is a social entity. You said they exist by virtue of our biological
nature. It seemed to me this was grossly simplistic, but you never went
beyond bold assertions. I guess if you say the World Trade Center was the
direct result of human biology, it must be so.

At any rate, I really must get some sleep. Of course my need for sleep
arises as a result of my biological nature. My need for sleep is not
socially constructed. I really, really need to get some sleep!!

Marko.






     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---