Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 00:25:04 -0600
From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar-AT-marx.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Brief review of readings



Here is a brief, very rough summary of the current readings,
Section 4 of Chapter 1 of RTS.

Bhaskar first defines the philosophical ontology (those properties of
the world which one can infer from the possibility of science by
asking the transcendental question: what must the world be like for
science to be possible?).

Then he switches to the epistemic fallacy and gives many examples.
These examples might be worth while working through, but the most
important example in the present context is: someone who says that a
philosophical ontology is impossible commits the epistemic fallacy.

Next Bhaskar says that "the philosophy of science abhors an
ontological vacuum."  I.e. those who deny the possibility of a
philosophical ontology necessarily end up with an *implicit* ontology.

Then he carefully examines the implicit ontology of Humean empiricism
and shows that it has a conservative bias, suppresses criticism.  It
is therefore wrong to think that the depth added by transcendental
realism makes science more dogmatic.

The denial of the possibility of philosophical ontology also leads to
the collapse of philosophy, and to voluntarism etc.



If you think there is something in there which should be discussed
specifically, please speak up.  Otherwise I will post the next
Section of the readings on Tuesday.

Hans Ehrbar.