File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0103, message 92


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005