From: "dbwanika" <dbwanika-AT-uganda.co.ug> Subject: BHA: Perspectival switch , Doing Science (research) & RB methodology; Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:55:53 +0100 Listers In my early days, I was fascinated by the mystery of economics science. Indeed economics is a mystery, for one time as a student we had an examination, where we had to solve rather peculiar mathematical economics problems - the questions were to apply mathematical models on instances i.e. where city youth vandalised bus stages (in my country they are all encased in transparent glass for adverts, protection of people from the elements and security purpose (well lighted also). Other questions were about selling weapons and effects on the industry and the like! Certainly, one would answer vandalism was positive for it created more work, factories producing at full capacity and indeed innovation in form of technologies. The syllogism here is that taxes, will come back in form of wages paid to glass factory workers and so on. I answered well and passed the course with flying colours. Recently I discovered what dialects imply in Hegel:1975 Logic pp.118 Translated by William Wallance, and forwarded by J. N. Findlay. Let me revisit monological deduction (positivist logic) re: youth vandalism. Output is total consumption capacity Vandalism is consumption capacity by replacement Youth vandalism is an acts positive output. Citizen it is as simple as that, wont u assume vandalism and wanton acts could included in the out put function. Watch the stock exchange and the ethos of war. It is economic science. Indeed, as elsewhere we have heard about the so called growth models not one but many of them. I am more interested in Messrs. Sir Roy Harrod- Evsey Domar growth model, which simply states that output (all produced goods) is equal to labour ratio (or growth rate of labour or population increase) , on condition that technology remains constant or does not change i.e. ceteris puribus (CP). (William H. Branson; 1989 Macroeconomics pp. 570-574. / Bhaskar A Realist Theory of Science ;1978 pp91-100) Trying my hands on labour sociology gave me a different story. Something which in fact has made me appreciate the reasons, why Bhaskar?s methodology in doing science might be far more reaching. (see figure 2.12 Bhaskar;1993 Dialectic pp110.) Why doesn?t Bhaskar do as other scientists by plainly naming the qualitative and quantitative methodology is his doing of science? He believes things of nature have got their own ways which are independent of our doing science on them. Force exist between unlike polar of a magnet with or without our knowledge of it. A tendency to committee a crime exist with or without the criminologist knowledge of it. therefore 1. Empiricism levitate facts of nature as sensation, feeling in form of general ideas or propositions or laws (laws are tendencies for Bhaskar /see also Bhaskar:1978,pp.12, 97-99) on the Kantian plane of a prior as Hegel writes, ? the misconception of knowing before you know..?. Hegel Logic:1975 pp.66 . Now just imagine that environmental economist or politicians, at least the greens talk of green technologies (possible), cars with minimal fossil (irreplaceable) fuel or alternative consumption energy- and the Bhaskarian instance of distinguishing between the constancy of ?intrinsic? and ?extrinsic? conditions. The greens in most cases are rebuked as anti-progress, you can imagine the propensity in their * perspectival switch * into these matters. But a positivism will argue we are doing science by denying science. 2. On metaphysics i.e. the above vandalism, based on speculative logic in Weberian understanding and interpretation, eliminates * dialects *, or non-linear thinking, which result into the Bhaskarian condemnation of hermeneutics i.e. implicit empiricism or descriptive scanty thought-forms (pseudo-falsification) of a closed system in a rather an open world or in his (Bhaskars) theory-practice consistencies (T/P). Take for example, what god is; a cow, while others assume is a monkey or the sun. In metaphysic every interpretation is possible or reducible to itself i.e. in the courts of an onion peeled to its core left with nothing. Love, care (irreducible to itself) is not money otherwise, it could be peddled on city streets and super markets. Yes it does. Indeed we couldn?t get it in terms of surplus value, since it can?t be weighed in an units as yet. Bhaskar overcomes metaphysical problems by categorically separating the intransitivity and transitivity of facts of matter. On the one hand i.e. in family affairs on both the moral/ normative plane i.e. childcare, and mum the most loving, a caring labouring father, it becomes a transfactuality, elevate so- De javu. Bhaskar true to himself in the introduction ; A Realist Theory of Science ;1978 pp 13 he then comes up with a diagram which seems to ?open up? the world of sciences de novo, from a ?constellational closure? of the above Harrod-Domar empirical world and writes; Dom. of Real Dom. of Actual Dom. Of Empirical Mechanisms x Events x x Experiences x x x How many worlds are these? I guess Bhaskar will suggest to Harrod and Domar that if their world was true, then it is closed at a vector where *experiences* intersect the * domain of the empirical *. Bwanika will not feel pity for Horrad -Domar model, for the model is thoroughly in a metaphysical state, taking understanding and thinking as limited to the singularities of the universals - eliminating transcendental realism at vandalism as a function of optimal output! Hegel in Logic pp.62 writes of empiricism from which comes a cry: ?Stop roaming in empty abstractions, keep your eyes open, lay hold on man and nature as they are here before you, enjoy the present moment.? Now let me ask this forum to help me here, where are mechanisms , events, experiences ruling in full employment or rather growth model in Harrod -Domar model as transposed on the domains of the real and actual re-environmental crisis, declining population, post industrial (automated) structures, advanced technologies, just-in-time production, globalised economies, social medicine etc, ? Thus far, for Bhaskar for science to be possible, we should understand the world as it is. He therefore has all these worlds in his model, which should be marked with x (meaning tick) to be a reasonable element(s), in the dialectic of the positive thus elimination of metaphysical structures of matter, force, generality and infinity. ( I have not understood what is meant by linearity yet still) I was reminded here that closed systems can also be interjected with foreign systems, as in the figure 2.12 Bhaskar;1993 Dialectic pp110,¨. Whereby all facts, Si, sociological or economic or otherwise i.e. in my labour economics and sociology, face a progressive correction , then retroduction (ascending) argumentation to avoid language fallacies or statements with false propositions. At E Bhaskar allows eliminating Popper?s falsification. Then he transforms if need be before he moves on a new level or identified structures and freezing qualitative and quantitative dichotomy in its tracts. Now suppose that we know societies change from stone age, agriculture to industrial is this not enough referential (Sj) detachment to show us this one of our world will or is also changing? - the scientific programme then is about to close in his thorough methodology minus qualitative and quantitative inadequacies and ambiguities. by the way what is meant by summum jus summa injura bwanika ______________ logon on & Join a ug-academicsdb list at http://www.coollist.com/subscribe.html List ID :ug-academicsdb-AT-coollist.com Your Email Address : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bwanika url: http://uhpl.uganda.co.ug e-mail: dbwanika-AT-uganda.co.ug http://pub59.ezboard.com/fugandamanufacturersassociationfrm1 --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005