Re: [Critical-Realism] transitive/intransitive, cr and philosophy, etc.

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tobin

Not to push this, but to try and answer you:-

(a) you used "muons" as an example in rejecting my earlier point, and
(leaving aside babbling, which is what infants do when they are still in the
process of mastering language), you therefore did what I said: talked about
a theoretical construct of a Humean science (apparently without realising
that is what it was, and apparently without realising I am your peer and not
one of your more disagreeable students).

(b) I agree your messages are pretty terse, but so are mine if possible (as
below).  If I keep going on about topics like Algol68, it is because no-one
has indicated they have tried at all to understand the relevance and
significance of what I have been explaining, let alone grasped it.  I don't
resent this, because I realise how difficult it is to grasp the significance
of what one is unfamiliar with.  I keep trying to explain apparently
unfamiliar topics from different angles in different contexts because I
personally do understand enough to realise their significance.  Once I have
found a way of communicating it there will be no occasion for me to "babble
on".

Respectfully

Dave T  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
Nellhaus
Sent: 16 June 2007 23:50
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] transitive/intransitive, cr and
philosophy,etc.

Dave T.:

>             Tobin babbling on about a theoretical construct of a 
> Humean science as if it were an indubitably existing material entity 
> and not just a way of speaking about an energy transfer,

Say what?  When the heck did I talk about theoretical constructs *or* Hume,
or anything even close?  The only things I've discussed during recent
exchanges have been (1) alternative transcendental arguments for realism (or
ontology), which is decidedly within the purview of CR, not Hume, and (2)
briefly, the misunderstand of the word "transitive."  If you have an
argument against either of those points, make it.  Otherwise, bug out.

As for babbling, I'd say my messages have been pretty terse, whereas you
have a lot to answer for, with your ceaseless talk about Algol etc.  I'd
call those arguments Taylorist.

T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



_______________________________________________
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