From: "Andrew Brown" <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:41:11 -0000 Subject: Re: BHA: Reasonable, rational or meaningful? Andrew, 'meaningful' is better since more general than 'rational', though not quite as appropriate as 'intelligible'. that's what i think anyway. don't you?....perhaps best not to answer on list....maybe we can create out own for list for completely pedantic CR issues only:) Andy On 15 Mar 2001, at 12:22, Andrew Mearman wrote: > So, Andy, to be completely pedantic, the answer to the > original question should have been that experiment is > both 1 (rational) and 2 (meaningful)?? :) > > Andrew > > > --- Andrew Brown <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > > But the point is that 'rationality' is embraced by > > 'intelligibility', > > whereas the converse is not the case. > > Intelligibility is the more > > abstract, general, hence more appropriate > > definition. That's why > > Bhaskar uses it. > > > > As you know, Mervyn, Bhaskar does *not* argue *for* > > the 'big ditch > > argument' he simply *refers to* the argument > > approvingly without > > explaining what it is. > > > > And frankly the argument is obviously circular. How > > do we judge > > progress?! No one seriously doubts the rationality > > of science > > (POMOS don't in practice of course, that's their > > theory practice > > inconsistency). The trick is to uphold our > > intuitions philosophically, > > not simply to repeat what our intuitions are! > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Andy > > > > On 14 Mar 2001, at 23:12, Mervyn Hartwig wrote: > > > > > Hi Ruth, Andrew > > > > > > >There is no question but that it assumes the > > > >rationality of science (among other things). > > > > > > This is not to say, of course, that the assumption > > is not argued for - > > > see eg SRHE 18-19, where the 'Big Ditch Argument' > > is deemed to make a > > > prima facie case for the superior explanatory > > power of science over > > > against 'other historically materialised practices > > (magic, religion, > > > etc.)' > > > > > > Does any one on the list save a few POMO lurkers, > > Gary, Jan and the > > > later Bhaskar himself seriously doubt this? :-) > > > > > > There is no assumption of course that the way in > > which scientific > > > results are applied is rational, as Bhaskar is > > careful to say (19). > > > > > > Also, re my joke: he's also careful to say that > > superiority is not an > > > all or nothing question, only where there's a > > conflict (18). The later > > > Bhaskar's position can be seen as one in which a > > religious outlook > > > overreaches and *embraces* emancipatory science. > > > > > > Mervyn > > > > > > > > > Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> writes > > > >Hi Andrew (Andrew M!), > > > > > > > >I agree with you that this issue is interesting. > > I really do think that it > > > >is important to remember that the original > > transcendental argument based on > > > >experimentation is developed as an internal > > critique of positions within the > > > >philosophy of science. There is no question but > > that it assumes the > > > >rationality of science (among other things). It > > is not until later in > > > >Bhaskar's writing that he makes arguments that, > > as I understand them, do not > > > >hinge on such an assumption. > > > > > > > >Warmly, > > > >Ruth > > > > > > > >At 06:27 PM 3/13/01 -0800, you wrote: > > > >>This intelligibility/rationality dual is an > > > >>interesting one, as it's been taken on by other > > CR > > > >>authors, such as Tony Lawson. Although there > > are many > > > >>quotations where 'intelligibility' is used, I > > don't > > > >>think it's a clear cut issue. As Benton (1981, > > in > > > >>ERCR, p. 299) notes, to deduce the nature of the > > world > > > >>from experimental activity assumes that such > > activity > > > >>displays rationality (in the sense of rational > > > >>justifiability). If it were not assumed that > > > >>scientists were rational in some sense nothing > > about > > > >>the world could be inferred from experimental > > > >>activity, save that it contained some insane > > > >>scientists. Similarly, scientific development > > must be > > > >>assumed to proceed somewhat rationally to draw > > > >>inferences from it (above). Indeed, Bhaskar > > (RTS, p. > > > >>176) talks of my rational reconstruction of the > > > >>process of scientific discovery. Moreover, > > Bhaskar > > > >>talks (RTS, p. 46) of ontology providing a > > rationale > > > >>for experiment; then (SR, p. 8) of TR aiming to > > > >>uphold and display the intelligibility and > > rationale > > > >>of science; and of transfactual tendencies > > showing > > > >>that a rationale existsfor the experimental and > > > >>applied activity of science. Also Bhaskar > > > >>acknowledges (PN, p. 171) Bentons argument that > > there > > > >>exists the need to assume the rational > > justifiability > > > >>of the epistemic practices of science before > > strong > > > >>conclusions are drawn [about the world] and that > > this > > > >>requires one to declare ones hand with science. > > > > > >> > > > >>Andrew > > > >> > > > >>--- Andrew Brown <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > >>> 'none of the above': > > > >>> > > > >>> you want INTELLIGIBLE. > > > >>> > > > >>> Of your three options 'meaningful' comes > > closest. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best wishes, > > > >>> > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >>> On 12 Mar 2001, at 16:29, Fredrik Liljeros > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Dear all, > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Which of the three questions bellow would be > > best > > > >>> to use in a description of > > > >>> > Bhaskars transcendental technique? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > 1. What must be the case for the experiment > > to be > > > >>> a RATIONAL activity? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > 2. What must be the case for the experiment > > to be > > > >>> a MEANINGFUL activity? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > 3. What must be the case for the experiment > > to be > > > >>> a REASONABLE activity? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Thanks, > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Fredrik > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Fredrik Liljeros > > > >>> > Dep. of Sociology > > > >>> > 106 91 Stockholm > > > >>> > Sweden > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Tel. +4g 8 163117 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > --- from list > > > >>> bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> --- from list > > > >>> bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >>__________________________________________________ > > > >>Do You Yahoo!? > > > >>Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at > > great prices. > > > >>http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> --- from list > > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list > > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > -- > > > Mervyn Hartwig > > > 13 Spenser Road > > > Herne Hill > > > London SE24 ONS > > > United Kingdom > > > Tel: 020 7 737 2892 > > > Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk > > > > > > > > > --- from list > > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > --- from list > > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005