From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu>
Subject: BHA: RE: various queries
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:04:33 -0400


Ruth wrote:


> The second is maybe a little less dumb, but it's odd.  It's this:  In the
> chapter that I am working on, I want to point out (and then argue against,
> which should come as no surprise) the kind of interpretation that some
> readers of Bhaskar (some of my favorite people on the list even!) have of
> the concept of the "intransitive object" of science -- i.e., that what it
> signifies is that x is an object of inquiry, not that x has any particular
> ontological status.  What I'm wondering is whether anyone on the
> list either
> has themselves presented this view in print anywhere other than
> the list or
> knows of others who have.  I've seen pieces that suggest the alternative
> interpretation, i.e., that the concept designates an ontological
> status, but
> none on the view that a lot of list members seem to hold.  I'd like to
> address the interpretation, but I'm not sure how to give examples of it.

Although not cast in quite these terms, Andrew Sayer's discussion of
signification and referents makes a similar argument. See _Realism and
Social Science_ (Sage 2000), ch. 2.

	Marsh Feldman



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