Re: BHA: Mainstream Philosophy of Science

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ronny,

>his work is lacking in a certiain 'content'. He has supplied the framework
>but the 'content' is lacking.

I agree that a detailed content is lacking, though I think the broad
contours are there. But of course the task of supplying detailed content
is now far more complex than in Marx's or Hegel's, let alone
Aristotle's, day. Even in Hegel's day it was possible virtually to 'know
everything', but now... So again, it's largely over to others.

Mervyn


rsmyhre@xxxxxxxxxx writes
>Quoting Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>Hi Mervyn,
>
>(I have been away for a week, so this late reply)
>
>I agree with most of what you said, especially this:
>
>> Notwithstanding necessary qualifications, many of which you supply, it
>> still seems to a relative outsider (me) that philosophy of science
>> hasn't broken decisively with the mechanistic and physicalist
>> problematic of the bourgeois Enlightenment, such that a pall of
>> scientism and positivism (construed very broadly, e.g. as by Kolakowski)
>> still hangs over it.
>
>I am in complete agreement here. It seems that the 'break' has come more from
>metaphysics (e.g. E. J. Lowe, Michael Loux, David Wiggins) than philosophy of
>science proper. Anyway it seems that many of contemporary philosophers would
>agree with what you said above.
>
>> Of course, I hope you're right. I wouldn't dispute that there's high
>> disputation, but I'm sceptical that there's been a fundamental shift of
>> outlook at the meta level. Perhaps the (Kuhnian) Copernican revolution
>> is under way (the owl of Minerva late as ever)?
>
>See above.
>
>> >It seems that Bhaskar has not
>> >done any original work in metaphysics and philosophy of (natural) science
>> >since RTS. It seems that DPF is more influenced by his reading of Derrida,
>> >Hegel, Heidegger and other 'continental philosophers than analytic
>> >philosophers.
>>
>> But there you go. You seem to be assuming that the analytic problematic
>> is the only appropriate one for the the philosophy of natural science -
>> and of course if this is so the dialecticisation of CR can be of no
>> interest for that discipline. But Bhaskar certainly intends DCR to be
>> applicable to the natural world (of which we are an emergent part!) and
>> this work (like his later stuff on the synthesis of science and
>> religion) imo only appears unoriginal if you are wearing analytic
>> blinkers. But of course for philosophers of science to get into the
>> later Bhaskar they would really have to take a (dialectical) non-
>> positivist naturalism and multidisciplinarity seriously; instead they
>> tend to reify the boundaries of their subject. They 'lack the time and
>> strength'? Let them find it, instead of just 'playing up and playing the
>> game' and promoting their careers...
>
>I think that a philosopher such as Aristotle, buth also Marx and (early) Hegel
>tried to combine analysis with dialectics. I guess Bhaskar would say the same
>but his work is lacking in a certiain 'content'. He has supplied the framework
>but the 'content' is lacking. I unfortunately don't have time to elaborate
>this in sufficient detail now.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Ronny



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---