Re: BHA: Mainstream Philosophy of Science

["Andrew Brown" <Andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

This issue interests me too:

My (none to informed) impression is that Harre *does* command
the respect of philosophers and philosophers of science.
Undoubtedly, for the most part, Bhaskar does not. If you read
through the few reviews of his early work in philosophy journals you
get some sort of impression of the repsonse. A few referees of my
work have started by stating their utter lack of respect for Bhaskar.
Possible explanations are a combination of two things: firstly, what
Bhaskar says does cut against the grain; secondly, Bhaskar's
arguments are not of the type that cut the mustard within the
strange world of professional philosophers.

Then again, critical realism is arguably far more influential amongst
practicising social scientists than whatever passes for mainstream
philosophy / philosophy of science. Marshall, perhaps you could
approach your presentation by stressing the practical social
scientific (useful!) nature of your work, and how CR fits into that.
Professional philosophers seem to be none too good at actually
interpreting the social world, let alone changing it....

Any profesisonal philosophers out there to offer some rather more
informed comment and assuage my prejudices?

Andy


Date sent:      	Tue, 14 May 2002 13:56:17 -0400
To:             	bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From:           	Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	Re: BHA: Mainstream Philosophy of Science
Send reply to:  	bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> 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 ---




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---