Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 22:47:27 -0600
From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar-AT-marx.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Necessity of philosophy



Before we move on in our reading,
I want to draw your attention one more time to
a passage on p. 29  (this is in rts2-12) where Bhaskar says:

BEGIN BHASKAR  It is not necessary that science
occurs.  But given that it does, it is necessary that the
world is a certain way.  It is contingent that the world
is such that science is possible.  And, given that it is
possible, it is contingent upon the satisfaction of
certain social conditions that science in fact occurs.
But given that science does or could occur, the world
*must* be a certain way.  Thus, the transcendental realist
asserts, that the world is structured and differentiated
can be established by philosophical argument; though the
particular structures it contains and the ways in which
it is differentiated are matters for substantive
scientific investigation. END BHASKAR


This implies an important negative statement which is often
challenged by critics of Bhaskar:  by observing the scientist
to his or her work, the philosopher can deduce
knowledge about the world which the scientist himself
cannot deduce from his or her scientific work.

Does anyone want to comment on this?