Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89

["Brian Dick" <briandick51@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I think that Tobin makes an excellent point by showing that 'intransivity'
does not refer to 'permanence', but rather independence from knowers.  This
becomes even more important when we turn to the human sciences, where the
objects of the intransitive dimension are even more fleeting than those of
the natural sciences.  Of course, equating the objects of the ID with
permanence is still problematic in the natural sciences (as with Tobin's
example of the muon), where we can point to the cosmic evolution of the
universe (e.g., laws of nature such as gravity or the strong force do not
even exist until after a series of 'symmetry breakings'), etc.

Furthermore, I think that the TD/ID may be relative in a certain sense.
That is, for example, when we conduct a sociology of knowledge where, what
were once objects of the TD (i.e., theories of society), now become objects
of the ID in terms of the purposes of the investigation, the antecendent
knowledge products of the sociology of knowledge becoming the new TD for the
purposes of the investigation.

Brian


In a sense I must disagree with Ruth as well as Phil: permanence isn't
an
issue in the TD/ID distinction *at all*.  Muons, for instance, exist for
nanoseconds, but they are intransitive for all that.  People confuse
"transitive" with "transient" (or "transitory").  They do not mean the
same
thing, or anything even *close*.

T.
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism