Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George

That's fine, but what you call 'critical convergence' I'd call 'creative
dialogue'.

I agree with Ruth re (a) - there's not much commonality here.

Mervyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George demetrion" <gdemetrion@xxxxxxx>
To: <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Powers,processes, etc.


>
> Third, how can there be creative dialogue if there's convergence
>
>
> Mervyn,
>
> Critical convergence doesn't presuppose unity though it does require an
> identification of commonalities, which does not deny differences but
> places
> them within the perspective of the context of the broader issue or problem
> under investigation.  It also doesn't deny the possibility of any given
> theory that might prove itself superio; simply that the grounds and the
> counterclaims need to be carefully addressed.
>
> Briefly, to take the three related schools that I've laid out--critical
> pragmatism (Peirce & Dewey), critical rationalism (Popper), critical
> realism
>
> Commonalities:
>
> a)  Post Humean metaphyics
> b)  Sustained critique of both positivism and postmodernism (Deweyan
> analysis is commonly drawn upon by contemporary pragmatists on this even
> as
> some pragmatists are working out of postmodern filters
> c)  Truth as a regulative ideal
> d)  very rigorous work in the area of scientific philosophy (eg. Dewey's
> Logic:  The Theory of Inquiry)
>
> Differences
>
> a)  Dewey focuses more on inquiry; Popper focuses more on the efficacy of
> the results of inquiry and works backwards (his World, One, Two & Three)
> b)  Bhsakar focuses more on ontology (the validity of which neither Popper
> nor Dewey would deny) while still accepting the ineradicable gap between
> what we can know and what is actual.
> c)  While that's a difference neither Dewey nor Popper deny what Bhaskar
> refers to as generative mechanisms and causal power (if I have the latter
> right) even as they (perhaps?) focus more on more immediate issues of
> effective problem solving as defined by the nature of the problem itself.
>
> There's nothing mystical in how this may be done.  It requires (and I'm
> not
> presuming your opposed) to greater interrdisciplinary border crossing at a
> fairly in-depth level which speaks to fundamental issues of breadth and
> depth, shaped, perhaps, by the preoblem at hand.
>
> I'd be really interested what the work in scientific essentialism may have
> to offer--intererested, but not at this time toi the extent of undertaking
> the hard work of gaining a substantial level of knowledge that would
> likely
> be needed to better appreciate how the depth and breadth of how a
> postpositivist theoretical and research design that accepts regulative
> truth
> as  an operative ideal might be further enhanced.
>
> George Demetrion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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