Re: [Critical-Realism] RTS Reading1 on a discussion board

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I don't think CR gets beyond epistemology even though its reach (like, in a
different way as Popper's World Three knowledge) moves toward a greater
objectivity and transcendence of the subjective.

George perhaps misses the point that CR is not about epistemology OR
ontology, it involves BOTH, for the epistemology interprets on the basis of
what it is taken for granted to be a correct ontology.  Thus Hume assumed
logic required certainty and misinterpreted Baconian scientific method on
the basis of that assumption.  Bhaskar has taken on board retroductive
logic, which doesn not deliver certainty but provides a more feasible
interpretation of scientific method.

Dave 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
gdemetrion@xxxxxxx
Sent: 14 June 2007 12:32
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] RTS Reading1 on a discussion board

I'm not sure how aligning the discussion with paragraphs is going to work,
as most contributions cover more than one para and sometimes the whole book
and beyond... Wouldn't this tend to fragment the discussion? I'd suggest
aligning discussion to the whole chunk of text posted.

Merv, Hans, that might be ok as Merv suggests.  On the other hand I like the
way you have those paragraphs highlighted a great deal, which at lest cause
me to pause a good deal more than through a linear reading of the preface.
On the other hand, taking that approach through the whole book would be a
great deal of effort.  One alternative as we move on in the reading is a
highlighting of key paragraphs/or passages (2-3 paragraphs) in any given
section.  Regardless, there is a great deal to recommend in the close
reading that your method provides that better enables those of us who would
benefit by such to highlight shorter extracts that may well help us to think
about them more extensively.

Two brief comments on the preface:

A)  It's interesting that Bhaskar, nor in anything that has surfaced here,
has referenced Peirce and Dewey in the postpositivist tradition,
particularly on the latter, Dewey's Essays in Experiential Logic (1916) and
Logic:  The Theory of Inquiry (1938) which are as rigorously as scientific
in the postpositivist sense that I have come across even as acknowledged I
have not done much work in the critical realist tradition.

B) Closely related, perhaps some critical commentary on Bhaskar's claim that
"only the position developed here can do full justice to the rationality of
scientific activities as theory-construction and experimentation.  And that
while recent developments [pace 1975] in the philosophy of science mark a
great advance on positivism they must eventually prove vulnerable to
positivist counter-attack, unless carried to the limit worked out here."
Perhaps Bhaskar delivers on this. Perhaps he offers some very fruitful
insights about some higher order transcendence that cannot be exclusively
circumscribed within the framework of CR.  Be that as it may one of the
broader issues in both the history of philosophy and epistemology (for at
some level, I don't think CR gets beyond epistemology even though its reach
(like, in a different way as Popper's World Three knowledge) moves toward a
greater objectivity and transcendence of the subjective.  Thus whether in
terms of CR's claims we're speaking of an heuristic that has substantial
impact in terms of what can be grasped (Popper calls science fiction in the
best sense of the term) or something more transcendent is also perhaps a
matter worthy of additional consideration.

In any event, thank you Hans.  I find the way you have demarcated single
paragrpahs highly instructive for further reflection.

George Demetrion

----- Original Message -----
From: Mervyn Hartwig
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:37 AM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] RTS Reading1 on a discussion board

Hi Hans

I think this would be great as a supplement to the list -- and I take it
that's the way you intend it, not as substituting for it. It  'archives' it
as a resource for the future -- it is already archived of course, but this
systematises it in  a form that some will prefer.

I'm not sure how aligning the discussion with paragraphs is going to work,
as most contributions cover more than one para and sometimes the whole book
and beyond... Wouldn't this tend to fragment the discussion? I'd suggest
aligning discussion to the whole chunk of text posted.

Mervyn
_______________________________________________
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