BHA: Re: RE: Note re: Howard re: Ronny

["Paschalis Arvanitidis" <p.arvanitidis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Marsh,
I am not sue if it is of any interest to you but Mirowski (Mirowski P (1987)
"The Philosophical Bases of Institutional Economics", Journal of Economic
Issues, XXI(3), 1001-1038) provides a good summary and criticism of
positivism (Cartesian tradition and neoclassical economic theory are the
terms he uses) form the economics point of view. I hope you will find it
useful.

kind regards

Paschalis Arvanitidis
University of Aberdeen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>
To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: BHA: RE: Note re: Howard re: Ronny


> Hi all,
>
> Could someone provide references for Ellis' work? And Caroline Lierse?
>
> Also, I'm looking for a good summary of criticisms of positivism. I'm
aware
> of many individual ones (by Bhaskar, Hacking, and others) as well as the
> classic "anti-positivist" work (Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend) that attacks
> positivist principles. What I'm looking for is more of an overview and
> chronology. Does anyone out there know of one?
>
> Marsh Feldman
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ruth Groff
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:06 AM
> > To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: BHA: Note re: Howard re: Ronny
> >
> >
> > Hi Howard,
> >
> > I hope that Ronny will say more -- and I hope on-list, because
> > I'm interested in the Aristotelian underground too! - but I just
> > wanted to chime in for a second.
> >
> > The Harre and Madden book is not that widely engaged in establishment
> > >literature either, is it?
> >
> > My sense is that it registers on the radar both more and
> > differently than Bhaskar's books.
> >
> >
> > But actually, rather than the history of philosophy
> > >stuff, I'm more immediately interested in your impression of
contemporary
> > >philosophers of science in their engagement with causal realism.  Why
has
> > >so little been made of the issue of ontological stratification?  My
guess
> > >is because mainstream realisms have emerged from the soil of Quine and
> > >Putnam.
> >
> > Can you say more about how Quine fits here?  I would fit him into
> > the narrative very differently.
> >
> >
> > >Another way of asking this is how central has the critique of Hume
> > >been to the mainstream evolution of scientific realism?
> >
> >
> > Ellis and Caroline Lierse, at least, do go at Hume directly.  Can
> > you say some more about exactly what you see being captured by
> > the term "ontological stratification" that you think is not
> > captured by those two, anyway?
> >
> > I think it would be great to do some common reading of some of the
> > >references you mention.
> >
> > I would love to do this.  Absolutely.
> >
> > Ruth
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---