Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:43:28 +0100 From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: why believe in science Dear Ruth This sentence of mine was an attempt to summarize what Bhaskar is saying in SRHE pp18-19, so please consult that for a full account of its intended meaning. It needs to be placed in context of previous emails which I think made it clear that I was talking, not about commitment to the truth-value of science (your phrase, not mine), but commitment to science as a means of knowing that is superior to other historical practices (magic, religion, etc). I didn't give an argument, but alluded to the one given by Bhaskar, which comprises 'the considerations that cluster around what has come to be known as the "Big Ditch Argument", and in particular the fact that almost everywhere, within ... a generation or two, agents come to accept modern natural science ... as superior in explanatory power to its pre-modern... rivals, and to prefer... natural-science based technologies'. I find this fairly persuasive. It appeals to history because 'such commitments can no more be justified by philosophy, or by philosophy alone, than boots can climb mountains' ie foundationalism must be rejected. Hope this helps. Mervyn Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> writes >Hi all, > >I'm seriously thinking about this phrase (>philosophy alone cannot justify >commitment to >science, only an appeal to the wider horizon of historical >experience >can) and I realize that I don't really know what it means -- not >rigorously anyway. What exactly does it mean? What is the argument for a >commitment to the truth-value of science? > >Ruth > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- -- Mervyn Hartwig --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005