Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:47:00 -0500 From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> Subject: Re: BHA: negativity wins >Dear Carrol > >Well, all I can say is that it is has been pretty much a commonplace in >the philosophy of science since Kuhn. > >Bhaskar contrasts this position with a 'monistic' one - he's not saying >that there is no continuity, rather that there is radical discontinuity >as well as continuity. > >What a positivist you seem to be! > >Mervyn It seems to me that it is best to make a distinction between (A) the _emergence_ of modern science (made possible by the transition from the world before capitalism to the capitalist world) and (B) theoretical changes _within_ modern science. Calling both (A) & (B) "paradigm changes" a la Kuhn _obliterates_ the aforementioned distinction, that is to say, the _specificity_ of capitalism as a mode of production (& the ideological condition that goes with it); in other words, the effect of Kuhn's argument is to obscure the specificity of what capitalism is. Is there anything in Bhaskar's theory that invalidates the distinction between (A) and (B)? Given Bhaskar's emphasis on emergence as an important concept, I rather think that it is more consonant with Bhaskar's philosophy of science to make the distinction. Yoshie --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005