Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

Well, I think the emergence of knowledge and error is a causal situation, 
but we're just going to disagree.  So yes, let's move on.

Cheers,

T.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11


> Hi Ruth, Tobin, George
>
> I think Ruth's epistemic point is right when you bring in the domain of 
> the
> real and real definitions -- it's far easier to get things wrong than 
> right.
> I was thinking at the level of nominal definitions, which we also need 
> from
> the point of view of survival/flourishing in the absence of real ones.
>
> Tobin, by 'all determination is negation' Bhaskar means, I think, that all
> causation is analytically absenting (an existing state of affairs).
> Absenting is thus fundamental to the process of knowledge production 
> (which
> has causes!) but making mistakes can hardly be seen as primary in this
> process -- after all mistakes themselves are absented by it when we make
> genuine discoveries. One of the things possibly going on here is that 
> you're
> conflating absence qua ill from the point of view of human flourishing (it
> is a mistake to touch a flame with the naked hand) with absence as
> causation.
>
> But this takes us a long way afield, and I agree: time to move on in RTS.
>
> Mervyn
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
>
>
> Tobin, George, Mervyn, all,
>
> I'm still pretty sure I think that outside of logic, "A" and "not-A" are 
> not
> equally weighted, epistemically.  I'm not sure if this is to say that
> negation is primary -- I don't know if I think that.  But I would want to
> say that the bar for soundness seems lower, somehow, for a statement like 
> "I
> don't know what it is, but it sure isn't A" than for "It's A."  I think 
> that
> it has to do with how, outside of logic, if you say something is "A" you
> actually know what it is, viz., it's A.  By contrast, if you say tht all 
> you
> know is that it's not A, you've only gone a small way toward determining
> what it is.  I you want we could say that, outside of logic, "A" 
> constitutes
> a real definition, while "not A" doesn't.  I mean, if you have a
> well-grounded belief that something is gold, to use our favorite example,
> you've know more than you do if you've got a well-grounded belief that,
> whatever the hell it is, it's not gold.
>
> I think that that is part of why, as a category, it's easier to slip it 
> past
> the radar of people who balk at knowledge, as Tobin was suggesting
> originally.
>
> Should we move on soon, in the text?
>
> r.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 


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