File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9707, message 88


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:16:40 +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,

>My reasons for being unconvinced are epistemological rather than
>ontological; In order for RB to sustain the above presupposes an
>epistemological framework which is capable of demonstrating that the
>'intelligible' practice from which he derives his ontology (ie.
>experiment) really is 'scientific'. 

Well maybe what we don't need is an epistemological framework so much as a
set of transitive objects which seem to better describe the practice we know
as science. Now here, the strength of TR stands not only on its own
strengths, but also its ability in relation to competing accounts. TR simply
is the best account available not _the_ account. 

>Only by making an initial
>epistemological judgement to the effect that we have identified
>scientific practice can we take the further step of criticising such
>theories as are inconsistent with the ontology of this practice (and
>on this basis label them 'ideological). 

But surely this is exactly RB's claim. TR is a theory of science which RB
claims is better able to account for the actual practices of science than
contenders.

>Unfortunately, at least within his articulation of TR, Bhaskar does
>not seem to furnish much by way of epistemic guidelines. 

I agree.

In fact,
>quite disappointingly, he adopts a stance of epistemological
>relativism. 

Yes, but it is important to be clear about what RB means by this. His stance
is not epistemological nihilism. Here epistemological relativism simply
refers to the fact that all beliefs are produced in specific time/space
locations.


>For instance, how, given a stance of epistemic relativism, could we
>defend the structured ontology presupposed by the 'intelligible'
>practice of experiment from competing ontologies presupposed by
>similarly 'intelligible' practices such as witchcraft or astrology? 

Because science seems to work in all places and at all times, and given
competing accounts TR seems better. Moreover, its effects are not contingent
on beliefs. If you don't belief in witchcraft and astrology, then as far as
we can tell they can have little effect upon you. Scientific knowledge is
not like this. Moreover, we should hold onto the possibility of devising
scientific descriptions of withchcraft and astology.

>
>The practitioners of witchcraft here in South Africa are quite
>convinced, not only of its 'possibility' and 'intelligibility', but
>also of its practical success. 

Yes I am sure they are.

 In fact, from the point of view of an
>epistemological relativist, it would make no sense to criticize the
>proponents of witchcraft for having mis-attributed the causal powers
>of lightning (electric charges built up as a result of air movement)
>to the powers held by individuals. 

Sorry Colm, I don't follow this. Epistemological relativism, as RB construes
it, simply requires that we recognise that the beliefs of those who belief
in withcraft are produced in differing time/space locales. This doesn't mean
that every belief is equally valid however.

This is so because the actual
>practice of witchcraft (ie. the consulting of sangoma's and the
>casting of bones etc.), would certainly presuppose a different (even
>if still, structured) ontology to that of experimental science. [The
>ontology underlying witchcraft might comprise of a realm of
>spiritual-ancestral forces which come to manifest themselves in events
>in the natural and social realms. The implications for the resulting
>form of acceptable explanation are clear.]

And, of course they could be right, we don't have to be ethnocentric,
epistemological imperialists towards them. However, of the two stories the
scientific one seem to be the better, not only because we believe in it but
because it seems to work independent of belief. That is, even if the
believers in witchcraft don't belief in science, nay even know nothing of
it, split atoms still seem to harm them. I have seen little evidence of
witchcraft harming someone unaware of it. Belief in withcraft seems to be a
precondition of its effectivness. Of course, I could be wrong.

'A transcendental inquiry into the conditions
>of possibility of astrology is not going to be enlightening unless one
>believes in astrology as a source of practically efficacious or
>reliable knowledge' (PON: 171), then the same holds true for
>experimental science, and science more generally. 

Well, not strictly so. Again, scientific knowledge seems to hold even to the
person that does not know it. Vaccinations, seem to work on most people
without them knowing how. Surely the point about scientific knowledge is
that it seems to work.

>
>But, where does this leave us in the face of the postmodern denial of
>any privileged status to scientific explanations? What does this mean
>for our efforts to avoid lapsing from epistemological into full-blown
>ontological relativism? Must we simply accept the propositions of
>realism as a matter of 'faith'?

Well, at one level yes. But isn't all metaphysics of this order. I have no
problem accepting realism because to me it seems to be the best account we
have. (actually, as Searle points out, even if realism as typically
construed, is wrong realism would still right. After all, even if we are all
brains in a vat being manipulated by mad scientists, the the vat, the
brains, the scientists, and the lack of a material reality as we know it
would all still be real. In effect, there _really_ would be no external
world, but there would be a world of vats, brains and scientists). However,
I still come across many many people who buy into a mystical anti-realism.
What makes them this way? I don't know. But then again humans are strange
creatures.

Thanks. It is nice to have someone new contributing.






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

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

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



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005