Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:26:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: amit ron <amitr-AT-post.tau.ac.il>
Subject: reading group


Until Know I have participated in this very interesting group only as a
reader, and this because I'm 1) only a student 2) not very familiar with
Bhaskar and 3) not native English speaker, I thought It will be better to
remain a listener. 

I hope this reading group will give me the opportunity to know Bhaskar
better, and a more convenient forum for discussions and clarification. 

Now, for the question:

What is Bhaskar definition of science?

>From part 1 ("Two sides of 'Knowledge'") I learn that science is possible
only if we assume the existence of intransitive objects. But, as I
understand, science itself is a method for acquiring knowledge ("what must
science be like to give us knowledge...").

Now the Popperian question can be asked, what is the difference between
the scientific way of acquiring knowledge (presuming intransitive
objects...) and other ways. 


According to Bhaskar, Is the main characteristic of science is the kind of
objects it deals with or it method? (I emphasize - the essence of science
and not its ontology). 

Is Science the only possible way for gaining knowledge, assuming realist 
ontology?

Amit Ron
Tel Aviv University


     ------------------