Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
critical-realism-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8 (Dave Taylor)
2. Justification (Ruth Groff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:26:01 -0000
From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28,
Issue 8
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<mailman.5338.1171814120.20350.critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Phil
I agree with Mervyn: don't dismiss the theory of alethic truth just on
the basis of one critique, especially when Ruth "senses that most CR'ers,
when they turn to the concept of truth, wind up being more interested,
actually, in questions about justification" - and doesn't see the
different sense in which she was too.
I can agree that Bhaskar does not spell out his theory in words, but
that is not what an intuitive thinker contributes. What he has done is
used forms of words which, if you can make sense of them, may help you
SEE the logical schema as he sees them, in examples taken from his own
experience. As I could, from my different experience, most tellingly of
the complementary physical logics (both invented by C E Shannon) of early
computers, and the first adequate - four level - computer language; more
recently from seeing the relation of these to the physiological basis of
Jungian personality theory).
>Dave - you probably know more about this than I do
>so I doubt I could inform you beyond your existing
>brief but would be happy to hear any thoughts on
>the matter.
Phil, I knew nothing of "the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a
theory of truth" and had forgotten the "alethic" issue, so thanks, guys,
for all you've explained, especially Brian Dick for providing an
accessible reference and Ruth Groff for her stimulating and lucid
arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks as though you, Phil, are
interested in what Bhaskar has said, not (as I am) in what he is "saying"
in the sense of what reality he is pointing to. And that, really, is the
argument against a correspondence theory of truth: words don't portray,
they POINT to elements of what they wish to portray or transform, which
(alethic contra Hume) may be outside but (with Kant but in four different
ways - indicated for example by Aristotle's four causes or G K
Chesterton's "four winds") may be inside the "pointing machine". No,
Bhaskar never said anything like that in so many words, but I myself am
not interested in his precise words, I'm trying (like an engineer who
"stands as an interpreter between the philosopher and the working
mechanic, and must understand the language of both") to translate the
meaning of his allusions and philosophical jargon into terms practical
people and even children can imagine directly. So here's my
half-translated "thoughts on the matter", Phil, if you are still
interested.
A significant point to grasp on the alethic issue is the difference
between symbolic and iconic forms of "information" (i.e. distinguishing
marks). If a radio can detect AND REPRODUCE a programme, so can we. A
digital radio is like our talking, but the simple AM (amplitude
modulated) radio piggy-backs the form of the sound on the form of the
radio waves, and similarly light reflecting off real external objects
transmits whole to our vision not the object but its real form, which is
reproduced in our consciousness, where we do not so much store it as the
ability to reproduce it. Our brains have memories of both types, the one
remembering the sequence of events, the other how to reproduce them,
using such specialised skills and instincts as we happen to have. The
symbols are true when, used like keys in a google search, they point to
and conjure up the appropriate icons. The alethic icons are true when,
used like the results of a google search, we find ourselves able to place
some recalcitrant pieces of the jig-saw of knowledge and thus
symbolically index its true position.
If newer radio systems can automatically tune in to their signals on the
basis of the output becoming coherence, so can we. But now the meaning of
the signal is not the human programme, it is a directive to our "tuning
in" program, i.e. which specialised skills and motivating instincts are
appropriate at this phase of the dialectical process. This is the bit
Kant saw and Hume didn't.
As with google, the weak point with intuitive thinking is that, while it
may come up with answers, it doesn't necessarily come up with the rights
answers (although surprisingly often, it does). A very good academic
introduction to this may be found in J Hadamard's "The Psychology of
Invention in the Mathematical Field", 1949, Princeton University
Press/Dover reprints. An important and academically neglected practical
example of an intuitive philosopher writing for "working mechanics" is G
K Chesterton, whose appreciation of the artist "G F Watts", personal
"Orthodoxy" and "Whats Wrong with the World" (a critique of social
science) anticipate much that has been realised since, including
Bhaskar's tetrapolity of truth. But google doesn't produce answers until
the database it consults is very large, and similarly intuition is most
valuable in widely read people with catholic interests, least developed
in learned specialists. When the two types of mind work as a team, the
one comes up with the ideas and then (if he is not arrogant) spends his
time looking for instances in his own and other people's experience which
don't fit. The other has two choices: to explore the "symbolic logic"
implications on the assumption the principle is correct, or to trust
their own poorly-formed intuition and throw any babies out with what
seems to them just bathwater.
Another brilliant and neglected creative writer, Dorothy L Sayers,
distinguished "The Poetry of Search and the Poetry of Statement". The
fashion-conscious academic majority admire their own likeness in the
first. Bhaskar admirably in his own way represents the second. He is not
seeking ways of proving everybody else wrong, he is trying to share what
he sees as significantly right about the real world ordinary people have
to live in.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From:
critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig Sent: 16 February 2007 12:35 To: Continuation of the Spoon
Bhaskar List Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest,
Vol 28, Issue 8
Hi Phil
It doesn't seem very appropriate to dismiss the theory of alethic truth
just on the basis of one critique. Ruth argues that it's inadequate,
others that it isn't. See esp. the entry on alethia in my (ed.)
Dictionary of CR, Routledge 2007, the gist of which I've already posted
on this list. I now have the advance copies of this, and it should be in
libraries and books stores before too long.
Best
Mervyn
----- Original Message -----
From: <pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
Hi
thanks for your comments Ruth (and others). Dave - you probably know
more about this than I do so I doubt I could inform you beyond your
existing brief but would be happy to hear any thoughts on the matter.
Ruth - yes that is the MacIntyre piece you are referring to and I thought
it sat nicely with Bhaskar. Basically, I agreed with your views expressed
in your piece "The Truth of the Matter" regarding the lack of a
well-worked out theory of truth, at least in RTS, and the need for one.
MY supervisor is often asking me what Bhaskar's notion of truth is and I
thought that B. himself seems to equivocate on notions of
'correspondence' and 'coherence', while still at times seeming to imply
or require them. And I think generally the whole thing needs to be worked
out. I'm only first year phd and still just getting to grips with RTS so
I'm not that advanced with this, but was aware of the deficiency for
while he rejects correspondence and coherence he does not really say what
goes in their place. The later work of course introduces alethic truth,
but as you argue, is not adequate. So I was looking round for a theory of
truth that would be consistent with my use of critical realism contra
Habermas.
On Habermas, I was not aware of the move you note from consensus to
(regulative) correspondence, but I think that is quite significant if you
are right and would be grateful if you could inform me of the appropriate
text/s.
Regards
Phil.
On Feb 15 2007, critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> critical-realism-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. realist theory of truth (pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 2. RE: realist theory of truth (Ruth Groff)
> 3. RE: realist theory of truth (Dave Taylor)
> 4. Re: realist theory of truth (Tom Wayburn)
> 5. Don't open that attachment! (Ruth Groff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: 14 Feb 2007 21:16:39 +0000
> From: pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <Prayer.1.0.12.0702142116390.13115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:21:50 -0500
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <0E53E25A408CD847A76100C1D5D347971DADF52A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Phil, all,
>
> If that's the MacIntyre piece that I am thinking of, it's really nice.
> I've only just read it, and not closely yet -- it is the one in the new
> 2 volume collection of his, yes? But if it's the one I think it is,
> even on a cursory read it looked interesting enough that I put it in a
> syllabus for a new course I'm teaching, along with another of his. It
> might be fun to "talk" about the MacIntyre piece in the next little
> while. Or off-list if nobody else is especially interested.
>
> Meanwhile, Habermas has recently shifted from something like an ideal
> consensus theory to more of a correspondence as regulative ideal theory
> himself, no?
>
> I'll leave others to comment on reception of my critique of Bhaslar's
> handling of the concept of truth. I think that Chris Norris is
> sympathetic, and I'm pretty sure that Doug Porpora is. And Garry
> Potter. Maybe Jamie Morgan and Andrew Sayer, though of them I'm less
> certain.
>
> My sense is that most CR'ers, when they turn to the concept fo truth,
> wind
> up being more interested, actually, in questions about justification
> -- which I haven't taken on at all. Or otherwise in reaffirming realist
> ontological commitments.
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From:
> critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wed 14-Feb-07 4:16 PM To:
> critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Critical-Realism]
> realist theory of truth
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:22:55 -0000
> From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.0.1171566002.18506.critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Could someone (e.g. Phil) brief me on this? I myself took off from
> from discovering the necessity of a theory of complex truth, which in
> CR terms is about the criteria for truth and probability being
> different at Bhaskar's different logical levels and the measure
> two-dimensional (relationality and reliability) at each, so I have a
> personal interest in it.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 14 February 2007 21:17
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:32 -0600
> From: "Tom Wayburn" <twayburn@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <003c01c7508c$395d7c60$6401a8c0@DCLT7J61>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As long as others are offering material on truth, I will offer what I
> have
> written. This has not seen much criticism. I am not certain that
> anyone has read it carefully yet. It may be a trifle difficult because
> of all the
> automorphisms and functors. It can be found at
> http://www.dematerialism.net/Chapter%203.html#_Toc104446193 . I believe
> it
> is quite hopeless to place it in this message.
>
> Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas, USA
> http://dematerialism.net/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
>
> Hi Phil, all,
>
> If that's the MacIntyre piece that I am thinking of, it's really nice.
> I've only just read it, and not closely yet -- it is the one in the new
> 2 volume collection of his, yes? But if it's the one I think it is,
> even on a cursory read it looked interesting enough that I put it in a
> syllabus for a new course I'm teaching, along with another of his. It
> might be fun to "talk" about the MacIntyre piece in the next little
> while. Or off-list if nobody else is especially interested.
>
> Meanwhile, Habermas has recently shifted from something like an ideal
> consensus theory to more of a correspondence as regulative ideal theory
> himself, no?
>
> I'll leave others to comment on reception of my critique of Bhaslar's
> handling of the concept of truth. I think that Chris Norris is
> sympathetic, and I'm pretty sure that Doug Porpora is. And Garry
> Potter. Maybe Jamie Morgan and Andrew Sayer, though of them I'm less
> certain.
>
> My sense is that most CR'ers, when they turn to the concept fo truth,
> wind
> up being more interested, actually, in questions about justification
> -- which I haven't taken on at all. Or otherwise in reaffirming realist
> ontological commitments.
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed 14-Feb-07 4:16 PM
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
> Dear people
>
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself?
> Prior to discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on
> MacIntyre's account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture
> "First Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I
> am as yet unsure of how this account may differ or resemble William
> Alston's.
>
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Critical-Realism mailing list
> > Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:16:57 -0500
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Don't open that attachment!
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <0E53E25A408CD847A76100C1D5D347971DADF52C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I have no idea what that attachment is. I'm not going to open it
> myself.
>
> r.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
> ***********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:01:43 -0500
From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Justification
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<0E53E25A408CD847A76100C1D5D347971DADF55C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Dave,
Phil asked what the reception has been to my critique of Bhaskar's
treatment of the concept of truth. I mentioned the names of reasonably
well known thinkers w/in cr who I'm pretty sure are now friendly to it -
Doug, Chris Norris, Garry Potter, maybe Andrew Sayer, Jamie Morgan. Not
sure about Andrew Collier, but he might be a loose correspondence type
too.
I really can't imagine what you mean when you say that I am interested
in justification. Maybe it's just a terminological miscommunication? I
was using the term in the technical sense, to mean a concern with how to
tell whether or not a theory IS true, regardless of how one DEFINES true.
I'm a fallibilist, which means that I don't think that theories CAN be
justified. So the problem of justification criteria is not one that I
spend a lot of time thinking about. I did think about it for a minute, in
the later 90's, in the form of asking not how to tell if a theory is
justificed but rather how to distinguish between more and less
well-founded competing theories. But then I decided that it was okay with
me to let other people worry about it. Also, the idea that adjudication
between competing theories isn't rule-based anyway took firmer hold on
me.
Of course, the definition of the concept of truth is related to other
epistemological concerns, but they are not all of a piece.
Warmly,
r.
-----Original Message----- From:
critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave Taylor
Sent: Sun 18-Feb-07 4:26 AM To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28,
Issue 8
Hi Phil
I agree with Mervyn: don't dismiss the theory of alethic truth just on
the basis of one critique, especially when Ruth "senses that most CR'ers,
when they turn to the concept of truth, wind up being more interested,
actually, in questions about justification" - and doesn't see the
different sense in which she was too.
I can agree that Bhaskar does not spell out his theory in words, but
that is not what an intuitive thinker contributes. What he has done is
used forms of words which, if you can make sense of them, may help you
SEE the logical schema as he sees them, in examples taken from his own
experience. As I could, from my different experience, most tellingly of
the complementary physical logics (both invented by C E Shannon) of early
computers, and the first adequate - four level - computer language; more
recently from seeing the relation of these to the physiological basis of
Jungian personality theory).
>Dave - you probably know more about this than I do
>so I doubt I could inform you beyond your existing
>brief but would be happy to hear any thoughts on
>the matter.
Phil, I knew nothing of "the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a
theory of truth" and had forgotten the "alethic" issue, so thanks, guys,
for all you've explained, especially Brian Dick for providing an
accessible reference and Ruth Groff for her stimulating and lucid
arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks as though you, Phil, are
interested in what Bhaskar has said, not (as I am) in what he is "saying"
in the sense of what reality he is pointing to. And that, really, is the
argument against a correspondence theory of truth: words don't portray,
they POINT to elements of what they wish to portray or transform, which
(alethic contra Hume) may be outside but (with Kant but in four different
ways - indicated for example by Aristotle's four causes or G K
Chesterton's "four winds") may be inside the "pointing machine". No,
Bhaskar never said anything like that in so many words, but I myself am
not interested in his precise words, I'm trying (like an engineer who
"stands as an interpreter between the philosopher and the working
mechanic, and must understand the language of both") to translate the
meaning of his allusions and philosophical jargon into terms practical
people and even children can imagine directly. So here's my
half-translated "thoughts on the matter", Phil, if you are still
interested.
A significant point to grasp on the alethic issue is the difference
between symbolic and iconic forms of "information" (i.e. distinguishing
marks). If a radio can detect AND REPRODUCE a programme, so can we. A
digital radio is like our talking, but the simple AM (amplitude
modulated) radio piggy-backs the form of the sound on the form of the
radio waves, and similarly light reflecting off real external objects
transmits whole to our vision not the object but its real form, which is
reproduced in our consciousness, where we do not so much store it as the
ability to reproduce it. Our brains have memories of both types, the one
remembering the sequence of events, the other how to reproduce them,
using such specialised skills and instincts as we happen to have. The
symbols are true when, used like keys in a google search, they point to
and conjure up the appropriate icons. The alethic icons are true when,
used like the results of a google search, we find ourselves able to place
some recalcitrant pieces of the jig-saw of knowledge and thus
symbolically index its true position.
If newer radio systems can automatically tune in to their signals on the
basis of the output becoming coherence, so can we. But now the meaning of
the signal is not the human programme, it is a directive to our "tuning
in" program, i.e. which specialised skills and motivating instincts are
appropriate at this phase of the dialectical process. This is the bit
Kant saw and Hume didn't.
As with google, the weak point with intuitive thinking is that, while it
may come up with answers, it doesn't necessarily come up with the rights
answers (although surprisingly often, it does). A very good academic
introduction to this may be found in J Hadamard's "The Psychology of
Invention in the Mathematical Field", 1949, Princeton University
Press/Dover reprints. An important and academically neglected practical
example of an intuitive philosopher writing for "working mechanics" is G
K Chesterton, whose appreciation of the artist "G F Watts", personal
"Orthodoxy" and "Whats Wrong with the World" (a critique of social
science) anticipate much that has been realised since, including
Bhaskar's tetrapolity of truth. But google doesn't produce answers until
the database it consults is very large, and similarly intuition is most
valuable in widely read people with catholic interests, least developed
in learned specialists. When the two types of mind work as a team, the
one comes up with the ideas and then (if he is not arrogant) spends his
time looking for instances in his own and other people's experience which
don't fit. The other has two choices: to explore the "symbolic logic"
implications on the assumption the principle is correct, or to trust
their own poorly-formed intuition and throw any babies out with what
seems to them just bathwater.
Another brilliant and neglected creative writer, Dorothy L Sayers,
distinguished "The Poetry of Search and the Poetry of Statement". The
fashion-conscious academic majority admire their own likeness in the
first. Bhaskar admirably in his own way represents the second. He is not
seeking ways of proving everybody else wrong, he is trying to share what
he sees as significantly right about the real world ordinary people have
to live in.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From:
critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mervyn
Hartwig Sent: 16 February 2007 12:35 To: Continuation of the Spoon
Bhaskar List Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest,
Vol 28, Issue 8
Hi Phil
It doesn't seem very appropriate to dismiss the theory of alethic truth
just on the basis of one critique. Ruth argues that it's inadequate,
others that it isn't. See esp. the entry on alethia in my (ed.)
Dictionary of CR, Routledge 2007, the gist of which I've already posted
on this list. I now have the advance copies of this, and it should be in
libraries and books stores before too long.
Best
Mervyn
----- Original Message -----
From: <pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
Hi
thanks for your comments Ruth (and others). Dave - you probably know
more about this than I do so I doubt I could inform you beyond your
existing brief but would be happy to hear any thoughts on the matter.
Ruth - yes that is the MacIntyre piece you are referring to and I thought
it sat nicely with Bhaskar. Basically, I agreed with your views expressed
in your piece "The Truth of the Matter" regarding the lack of a
well-worked out theory of truth, at least in RTS, and the need for one.
MY supervisor is often asking me what Bhaskar's notion of truth is and I
thought that B. himself seems to equivocate on notions of
'correspondence' and 'coherence', while still at times seeming to imply
or require them. And I think generally the whole thing needs to be worked
out. I'm only first year phd and still just getting to grips with RTS so
I'm not that advanced with this, but was aware of the deficiency for
while he rejects correspondence and coherence he does not really say what
goes in their place. The later work of course introduces alethic truth,
but as you argue, is not adequate. So I was looking round for a theory of
truth that would be consistent with my use of critical realism contra
Habermas.
On Habermas, I was not aware of the move you note from consensus to
(regulative) correspondence, but I think that is quite significant if you
are right and would be grateful if you could inform me of the appropriate
text/s.
Regards
Phil.
On Feb 15 2007, critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> critical-realism-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. realist theory of truth (pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 2. RE: realist theory of truth (Ruth Groff)
> 3. RE: realist theory of truth (Dave Taylor)
> 4. Re: realist theory of truth (Tom Wayburn)
> 5. Don't open that attachment! (Ruth Groff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: 14 Feb 2007 21:16:39 +0000
> From: pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <Prayer.1.0.12.0702142116390.13115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:21:50 -0500
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <0E53E25A408CD847A76100C1D5D347971DADF52A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Phil, all,
>
> If that's the MacIntyre piece that I am thinking of, it's really nice.
> I've only just read it, and not closely yet -- it is the one in the new
> 2 volume collection of his, yes? But if it's the one I think it is,
> even on a cursory read it looked interesting enough that I put it in a
> syllabus for a new course I'm teaching, along with another of his. It
> might be fun to "talk" about the MacIntyre piece in the next little
> while. Or off-list if nobody else is especially interested.
>
> Meanwhile, Habermas has recently shifted from something like an ideal
> consensus theory to more of a correspondence as regulative ideal theory
> himself, no?
>
> I'll leave others to comment on reception of my critique of Bhaslar's
> handling of the concept of truth. I think that Chris Norris is
> sympathetic, and I'm pretty sure that Doug Porpora is. And Garry
> Potter. Maybe Jamie Morgan and Andrew Sayer, though of them I'm less
> certain.
>
> My sense is that most CR'ers, when they turn to the concept fo truth,
> wind
> up being more interested, actually, in questions about justification
> -- which I haven't taken on at all. Or otherwise in reaffirming realist
> ontological commitments.
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From:
> critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wed 14-Feb-07 4:16 PM To:
> critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Critical-Realism]
> realist theory of truth
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:22:55 -0000
> From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <mailman.0.1171566002.18506.critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Could someone (e.g. Phil) brief me on this? I myself took off from
> from discovering the necessity of a theory of complex truth, which in
> CR terms is about the criteria for truth and probability being
> different at Bhaskar's different logical levels and the measure
> two-dimensional (relationality and reliability) at each, so I have a
> personal interest in it.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 14 February 2007 21:17
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
> Dear people
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have
> also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally
> positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself? Prior to
> discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on MacIntyre's
> account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture "First
> Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I am as
> yet unsure of how this account
> may differ or resemble William Alston's.
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:32 -0600
> From: "Tom Wayburn" <twayburn@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <003c01c7508c$395d7c60$6401a8c0@DCLT7J61>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As long as others are offering material on truth, I will offer what I
> have
> written. This has not seen much criticism. I am not certain that
> anyone has read it carefully yet. It may be a trifle difficult because
> of all the
> automorphisms and functors. It can be found at
> http://www.dematerialism.net/Chapter%203.html#_Toc104446193 . I believe
> it
> is quite hopeless to place it in this message.
>
> Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas, USA
> http://dematerialism.net/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
>
> Hi Phil, all,
>
> If that's the MacIntyre piece that I am thinking of, it's really nice.
> I've only just read it, and not closely yet -- it is the one in the new
> 2 volume collection of his, yes? But if it's the one I think it is,
> even on a cursory read it looked interesting enough that I put it in a
> syllabus for a new course I'm teaching, along with another of his. It
> might be fun to "talk" about the MacIntyre piece in the next little
> while. Or off-list if nobody else is especially interested.
>
> Meanwhile, Habermas has recently shifted from something like an ideal
> consensus theory to more of a correspondence as regulative ideal theory
> himself, no?
>
> I'll leave others to comment on reception of my critique of Bhaslar's
> handling of the concept of truth. I think that Chris Norris is
> sympathetic, and I'm pretty sure that Doug Porpora is. And Garry
> Potter. Maybe Jamie Morgan and Andrew Sayer, though of them I'm less
> certain.
>
> My sense is that most CR'ers, when they turn to the concept fo truth,
> wind
> up being more interested, actually, in questions about justification
> -- which I haven't taken on at all. Or otherwise in reaffirming realist
> ontological commitments.
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed 14-Feb-07 4:16 PM
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] realist theory of truth
>
> Dear people
>
> I am doing my phd on aspects of Bhaskar and Habermas and have become
> aware of the deficiency in Bhaskar's thought re. a theory of truth. I
> have also become aware that Ruth Groff has been trying to remedy said
> deficiency by drawing on ideas taken from the work of William Alston,
> (of whom I had never before heard). I was wondering if anyone could
> inform me how this initiative by Ruth had been received by other
> realists (generally positive/negative) and especically Bhaskar himself?
> Prior to discovering Ruth's account I was intending to draw on
> MacIntyre's account of truth as put forward in his Aquinas lecture
> "First Principles, Final Ends and Contemporary Philosophical Issues". I
> am as yet unsure of how this account may differ or resemble William
> Alston's.
>
> thanks
> Phil O'Hanlon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Critical-Realism mailing list
> > Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:16:57 -0500
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Don't open that attachment!
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <0E53E25A408CD847A76100C1D5D347971DADF52C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I have no idea what that attachment is. I'm not going to open it
> myself.
>
> r.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
> End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
> ***********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
End of Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 15
************************************************