Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:42:41 +0100
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk (COLIN WIGHT)
Subject: Re: BHA: Non-experimental science (was "What must the ...")


Hi all,

I just want to make a quick comment on this issue.

If I understand Marshall and Ruth right, the objection is that RB develops a
theory of science from the experimental sciences and then somewhat crudely
directly applies this model to the non-experimental social world. If this is
the status of the argument then it misses the fact that RB goes to some
lengths, in PON, to specify the difference between the two realms. Here, the
work done in RTS can be seen under the aspect of underlabouring, in the
sense of clearing the ground, i.e. undercutting positivism and it
hermeneutic foils dependent upon it, so as to situate the possibilty, only a
possibility remember, of a naturalistic social science. Also, it's as well
not to get too hung up on semantics here, and in the afterword to the John
Shotter book 'Conversational Realities', RB says that his approach could
equally well be called 'critical anti-naturalism'.


Thanks,


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

Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA

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



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---