Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:36:23 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: epistemic fallacy.


Dear Nicola,

nicola taylor <nmtaylor-AT-carmen.murdoch.edu.au> writes
>Just a note, by way of clarification.  My argument (with Colin) was
>precisely that we need to ground a commitment to science (as a means of
>knowing) in historical experience and social relations.  

If this was your argument, I agree with it. A commitment to science can
be justified, ultimately, *only* in this way. Colin, who says we are all
non-foundationalists, evidently agrees too.

> 
>
>It would be interesting to know exactly what position is being attributed
>to me??  I certainly don't accept as my own the 'straw man' argument set up
>by Collin in his response to me.  As far as I can tell, Colin didn't
>respond to my argument.

You seemed to be denying, as you put it in your very first posting,
*that it is an error to conflate 'being' with 'our knowledge of being'*
and Colin was providing some standard CR arguments against such a
position. I think you could take his position on this on board without
damage to your own position, in fact I think it would strengthen it.

Mervyn



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