From: "Andrew Brown" <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:29:51 -0000
Subject: Re: BHA: re: cr and social science


Hi Mervyn,

Your cite from DPF illustrates preciscely my point. This isn't 
surprising because, as you know, RB is usually quite consistent 
on matters such as these. Recall my point is that transcendental 
arguements are a *species* of the *genus* which is retroductive 
arguments. Your mistake is to take transcendental arguments as 
the genus (you said that they are widespread in natural science, 
yet they aren't - only retroductive arguments are) . Thereby you 
miss the essential pont RB is making about social scientific 
method in PON. This is all quite clear from the section of PON I 
pointed out in my previous post. I simply do not have time to cite at 
length from PON, but I assure it is all there.

Best wishes.

Andy

On 11 Feb 2002, at 1:43, Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> 
> '... transcendental arguments are merely types of the retroductive-
> explanatory argument form familiar to science'. - DPF 108 (et passim).
> 
> Mervyn
> 
> Andrew Brown <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk> writes
> >Hi Mervyn,
> >
> >> >Why develop a 
> >> >method in social science, viz. 'transcendental deduction', 
> >> 
> >> I don't know where you got this from. Transcendental reasoning
> >> according to Bhaskar is central to the natural as well as social
> >> sciences.
> >
> >I got it from our friend RB! I think you just need to re-read the
> >relevant section of PON (pp.49-54) to remind yourself of this. 
> >
> >You are wrong re 'transcendental reasoning': this is employed by both
> >philosophy and social sciences, but not by natural sciences. What I
> >think you must have in mind is 'retroductive reasoning'. This latter
> >is the genus of which transcendental deduction (argument) is the
> >species. Once again this illustrates that you are downplaying what is
> >crucial to Bhaskar's argument on method - in this case the
> >specificity of social scientific method - and what is apparently
> >undermined by the 'little exaggeration' to which you refer.
> >
> >I think I am basically restating Collier's position here, though he
> >stresses all that is left in critical naturalism, viz. it's
> >*philosophical* aspects, whilst recognising the problem I stress,
> >viz. that Bhaskar's key discussion of *method* in social science has
> >had its apparent foundation (lack of ability to do social scientific
> >experiment) removed.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> -- 
> Mervyn Hartwig
> Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
> 
> Subscription forms: 
> http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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