File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9911, message 11


Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:04:29 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: Transcendental argument


Hi John,

I absolutley agree with just about everything you say until we get to:

>
>However, "proving" success is another matter.

I'm always a little bemused by how this position takes a hold (and I am not
accusing you here John) of what I normally consider to be sane minds. Even
most radical pomos I know who deny any extralinguistic reality seem to have
little difficulty in composing their denials of it on machines that depend
upon the success of science beyond the laboratory (and with it the
transfactual nature of the objects discovered) for their functioning. They
likewise seem to have little difficulty in boarding planes which likewise
depend upon it. I.e. the success of science is all too evident (something I
regret at times). And would planes ever have been built if the Romantics
(for which read the postmoderns) had had their way? In fact, isn't it the
case the "proving the non-success" of science is the difficult issue. Now I
know of course the all too obvious ripostes to this whether in their its
"only because we all believe it mode", or Descartes "evil demon" mode etc.,
ect., etc. But really, what is never fleshed out in the former is just who
"we" are, and the latter is simply uninteresting, and anyway is or is not
the demon real?

The chalmers piece was \i think RP, but I would have to look that up. My
understanding is that Chalmers is quite sympathetic to CR.

Thanks,


------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005