Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:22:06
Subject: BHA: cr  vs methodolgy ?


Dear Listers

This is simply an attempt.

There is a lot of optimism but also a lot of pessimism or doubt about CR.
This is a time space factor. Secondary, the problem with CR realism, is
trying to be critical of the world we live in now, in order to understand
and grasp the world we are going to live in tomorrow.

The first step seems  to me has been to set, the  structure through which
tomorrow=92s world could be understood, explained but has also be  acceptable
 in the academic world. That is not the case as of now. It is an upward
struggle compared to Galielo and the church. CR VS METHODOLOGY.

To explain the structure is  near to an impossibility since any sort of
explanation which comes up now has to tap on several real world events; the
hole in the atmosphere; mad cow disease; toxic food,  the economy which
never worked;  the drug addicts who become more addicted, a city which does
not improve its inhabitants healthy, cars which we need but poison us;  an
inexact stock exchange which leads to speculation, a history which was not
exact, the geography which never explained  the world in totality etc.

Now , let us assume a medical doctor proclaims smoking actually causes
cancer, what will the tobacco industry say ;  let us assume that magnetic
fields do actually destroy human cells how will a mobile telephone
manufacturer respond into such circumstance?
A mobile phone might be a result of a past military war fare, a war fare
which killed innocent children and women, the same  phone which will kill
old people in cancer but give jobs to a given hospital,  the same phone
which brings the money and jobs in a given location.

Positivism does ground any argument on facts unless CR realist transcend
positivism the stages taken are very short indeed. Positivism is
psychologically grounded and set of mind which becomes a 'social fact' in
human sociology, which make peoples history, in their technological
development and norm lives.

Are these not enough * distinguished identifiers * to show the up hill
struggle all CRealist have to do battle with?

One thing which will crop up in any CRealist face to face debates, will be
who is that philosopher king who will explain  the necessity of zero toxic
emission in California without the will of the politics, law and economics
plus  human experience of toxic effects- this is a complicated issue
however is not assailable. A battle ground between of concrete universality
and concrete singularity.

The world is fundamentally  changing- any sort of analysis if positive or
negative will be met with the same force unless there is a terrible effects
of such events on human kind then CR can be hurried. Whenever Critical
Realist meet they should learn not to say * sorry *  if they are convinced
that what they are saying has got substance.

As of now CR realism lacks a forum of any heated debates and arguments
based on real world convictions but it rather takes on an academic forum
with all the caution which accompanies such a feel good entity something
like that.  The structure though is on ground i.e. the context in which CR
realism works is well set, for the world itself can=92t be explained
adequately with the existing knowledge. That too calls for  practising
academics outside  rather than academics practice.



it was just an attempt.









            |||||||||| |||| ||||| || |||  ||| ||||||

                                                                   Bwanika
-Uganda Home Pages  Ltd.  (Uhpl)

    uhlp-AT-starcom.co.ug

  www.uganda.co.ug

Tel: 256 ( 0 ) 41 250 240


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