Re: [Critical-Realism] Quick on Popper and falsification

[<gdemetrion@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ruth,

The following is asked out of a simple curiosity with no intent other than to learn something:

(1) What does Bhaskar offer in the realm of scientific (rather than social scientific) philosophy that isn't incorporated into Popper's thought.

(2)  What does a Bhaskarian resolution offer on the grounds of research design that might be missing from a Popperian approach?

In many respects I do think you get Popper right given the limitations of what I know.

However, I don't think Popper goes so far as to "the idea that things have intrinsic dispositional properties."  I think, in fact he believes these to be so, and he certainly does believe in causality, so there is an underlying ontological presupposition there somehow related to such properties.  Yet in terms of epistemology he remains an agnostic in terms of knowledge claims even though everything that he does know and intuit leads him to accept such an assumption.  From what I am picking up, Bhaskar makes knowledge claims related to such intrinsic dispositional properties of universal and perhaps even natural biological laws.  If that is the case the issue still remains the epistemic warrant for them and the extent to which his theory closes the epistemic-ontological gap.

(3)  In the most radical sense do Bhaskar's ontological theories move outside the realm of a faith claim in which (excuse the biblical reference, which I believe here is relevant, at least rhetorically) "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things [only partially] seen?"

Perhaps we're speaking here matters of degree with both considerable convergences and notable differences.  To review the request:

1)  In some plain lay terms what are some of those differences?
2)  In what senses do these differences matter?
3)  In what senses (and perhaps this is my question to answer once I have a better grasp of #'s 1 & 2) what are the areas of convergence and in what senses might the convergences be more important than the differences?

Regards,

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