From: shmage-AT-pipeline.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 04:31:46 GMT Subject: Astrology and Psephology In RTS 2-1.4, Bhaskar writes: "for the transcendental realist it is the nature of the object that determines the possibility of a science. Thus he can allow, without paradox, that there may be no humanly intelligible pattern to be discovered in the stars or politically intelligible pattern in voting behaviour. So that no science of astrology or psephology is possible, no matter now scrupulously `scientific method' is adhered to." I am confuse by two aspects of this short paragraph. If it is "the nature of the object that determines the possibility of a science," how is the nature of the object to be known if it cannot be made intelligible to us--but how can it be made intelligible if it is not a *possible* object of science? The second problem is the presence of the indicative mode--"no science of astrology or psephology is possible," in a sentence presented as following >from a conditional proposition--"there may be no humanly intelligible pattern to be discovered in the stars or politically intelligible pattern in voting behaviour." But given that astrology and psephology are real social practices with claims, however disputed, to practical efficacy based on cognitive validity, how can *philosophy* presume to dispute their status as sciences absent a definitive scientific refutation of their claims? Shane Mage
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005