[Critical-Realism] PON question

["gerard walmsely" <gerardwalmsley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Listers

This is a bit off topic but important imo.

In PON Bhaskar says: "Winch, it will be remembered, wants to demonstrate an
essential identity between philosophy and social science on the one hand,
and a fundamental contrast between social and natural science on the other.
When one examines the arguments for such a contrast one finds that they
reduce to just two. The first is an argument to the effect that constant
conjunctions are neither sufficient nor even necessary for social scientific
explanation, which is achieved instead by the discovery of intelligible
connections in its subject-matter. This may be granted. But the required
contrast is only generated if one assumes that the discovery of intelligible
connections in its subject matter is not equally the goal of natural
scientific explanation."

Can anyone say, does Bhaskar mean by this that "intelligible connections"
ARE the goal of natural scientific explanation (as opposed to causal
explanation), and if so, how do intelligible connections for a critical
realist in this respect differ, if at all, from the types of intelligible
connection aimed at by Winch (which I believe are conceptual)?  Would
Bhaskar be committed to a view that nature is intelligible *in
itself*here?  Can anyone offer any coment about that?

Best

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