Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:24:50 +0000 From: Colin Wight <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: DPF Reading ch 2.4 Contradictions: Misunderstandings Just a couple of quick comments on Hans's comments. Yes, my apologies it was a typo it should have been as Hans notes lack of ground for rational agency. However, I think RB is probably commited to denying (at least in most cases) that what he calls axiological indeterminacy, ever occurs. I'm not sure Hans wether he is "joshing" or not, but I accept the possibility (ever since I heard how Feyerabend came to write Against Method I've come to see philosophers a mischievous comedians). Anyway on the axiological indeterminacy point Hans goes on to say: We know by a >transcendental argument that the world must be such that >science is possible, but this does not mean that every >single aspect of the world must be accessible to science. I don't think, and I don't think Hans is suggesting otherwise, that RB has ever suggested this. Science, I think he says somewhere in SRHE should never be viewed as a supreme value and scientific findings must always be placed in the social domain and argued over. I >think the debate about abortion can be taken here as a rough >example: the human fetus is a human in the process of >becoming, i.e., it is at the same time a human and not a >human. This is a contradiction, which weakens the >scientific authority with which we can make decisions about >abortion. I'm not sure I would go along with this. I don't think science will ever be able to provide answers to all of our ethical deliberations, but it surely plays a role. We have to leave open the possibility that sometime in the future science may discover something about the foetus that tips the scales one way or the other in this debate (and this I might add, comes from someone who is already committed to one side of the argument on this issue, so I am accepting the possibility of my position being proved wrong - but then I am commited to rationally arguing for positions, so maybe I am just an unreconstrcted modernist!). If for example, science discovers all of a> >Certain real phenomena are not subject to laws. Is this been suggested that this is a position inherent in DCR? If so, that might explain why some CR'ers are unhappy. In CR ubiquity determinism is crucial RTS, p. 70. Thanks for you comments Hans. I'll give the list a day or two before posting the rest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales Aberystwyth telephone: +44 (0)1970-621769 fax : +44 (0)1970-622709 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005