Re: BHA: Mainstream Philosophy of Science

[Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andrew,

No, it wasn't me.  It was Howard, I believe.  I didn't quite understand your comment, though -- Psillos, I take it you are saying, doesn't mention Bhaskar.  But I'm confused: who has which approach?

[Does Psillos say interesting things, while we're at it?]

Warmly,
Ruth


At 07:48 PM 14/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Ruth,
>
>Was it you that mentioned Psillos?  Would you say that
>your explanation below also explains his omission of
>Bhaskar?  He does seem to me (from reading a few
>chapters; and this might be a gross simplification) to
>have the same approach as you describe below.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>--- Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Marsh,
> >
> > Longer response later, but for now: boy can I ever
> > relate!  [Have you not noticed my repeated posts on
> > this issue?]
> >
> > And it's not just in philosophy of science either;
> > it's in metaphysics, philosophy of language and
> > history of philosophy too.  For what it's worth, I
> > think that the explanation is that Bhaskar, like
> > Harre and Madden and now Ellis and a few others, in
> > propounding a non-Humean, non-Kantian account of
> > causality, was writing very much against the
> > mainstream.  To make a dent when you are doing that,
> > you have to be unbelievably persistent -- and you
> > have to take it as an explicit goal, I think.  You
> > have to publish where those people publish, engage
> > closely with what they say and do it over and over
> > and over and over and over ... you get the point.
> > Charles Taylor is a good model for that kind of
> > dogged persistence I think.  I get the sense that
> > Ellis has been up to it on a smaller scale in
> > Australia.  The other approach, of course, and a
> > perfectly respectable one it seems to me, is to more
> > or less dismiss the people who you think are
> > spouting nonsense, and not waste time that could be
> > better spent on other things trying to make
> > in-roads.  It seems to me that that's been Bhaskar's
> > approach.  So I think that mainstream philosophers
> > don't know about Bhaskar because he hasn't
> > undertaken to force himself upon the discipline.
> > [Though I should tell you that my friend who is a
> > serious historian and philosopher of science guy
> > tells me that his impression is that people *do*
> > know about Bhaskar, but are put off by his writing
> > style.  I don't see why that should be a problem
> > with RTS, personally, but that's what he tells me.]
> >
> >
> > Anyway I'd love to talk about this more.  What are
> > you planning to say at this conference?
> >
> > Warmly,
> > Ruth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list
> > bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
>http://launch.yahoo.com
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---