File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9910, message 70


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005