Re: BHA: Mainstream Philosophy of Science

[Richard Moodey <moodey001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi listers,

In "The Sociology of Philosophies," Randall Collins argues that
philosophical debates at any given time in history are between relatively
small numbers of philosophical camps, rather than between
individuals.   What I gather from this thread, is that critical realists
see themselves as not being counted among the schools of thought debating
the central issues in contemporary philosophy of science.  Why don't they
pay more attention to CR?  There are many voices clamoring to be heard, or,
more accurately, many texts being presented for reading, and the extent to
which a text is read is largely a consequence of where the writer is
located in networks of communication and influence.   People involved in
intellectual debates look for allies, and they follow leads given to them
by colleagues they trust.  There are simply not enough men and women in the
central networks in mainstream philosophy advising their colleagues to see
what Bhaskar has to say on this point.   Few mainstream philosophers have
been persuaded by their colleagues that Bhaskar's work will help them much
in fighting their battles.

Collins' book has been generally praised by sociologists, and trashed by
philosophers.  My sense of the major objection philosophers have to his
argument is that he pays too little attention to the content of the ideas
being debated by philosophers.  My sense of the major reason sociologists
like the book is that it stresses the importance of the ritual dimension of
philosophical debates, and of the networks and structures within which
these debates take place.  Accordingly, I  expect that the philosophers on
the list will not regard Collins' argument as a very good explanation for
the neglect of CR by mainstream philosophy, but that the social scientists
are more likely to say "that's interesting, there might be something to it."

I might be completely mistaken about the philosophers' response, of course,
but let me respond, even if it is response to "straw" men and
women.   Alternative explanations for mainstream philosophers' neglect of
CR might be (1) they are blinded to the truth by their own prejudices, (2)
they aren't smart enough to read and understand Bhaskar, or (3) what
Bhaskar has to say is not of sufficient intellectual value for them to take
him seriously.   Critical realists are unlikely to accept 3.  I and 2 sound
suspiciously like rationalizations for the failure to convert others to a
new faith.

Regards,

Dick



    --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---