Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 02:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andrew Mearman <ajmearman-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: BHA: RE: Predictions 


Just to add to this: of course there is nothing to stop a person making a prediction, but in open systems, it is much less likely that the prediction will be correct. One important epitemological implication of this is that positions such as Milton Friedman's - that theories should be assessed solely on their predictive power - are untenable in open systems.
 
It might also be useful to distinguish between predictions of events and predictions of other types, perhaps of structural changes, processes, etc. The latter are clearly easier in open systems. For instance, we can predict very well that kittens change into cats. That is part of their nature. Of course, this still occurs in open systems and their are other factors which can prevent the kitten becoming a cat.
 
Thanks for the question. It's an important one, because if theoretical bodies derived from/consistent with CR wish to be relevant and to help shape policy, they (at least in the current institutional framework) have to make predictions, albeit more cautiously than perhaps currently occurs.
 
andrew

John Ridgway <John.Ridgway-AT-sd.qld.gov.au> wrote:



Mint
Just a quick response. As I recall the notion of Rhythmic in DPF
(repeated patterns of social behaviour which is the foundation of a
social institution) does mean that predictions are possible or useful
(necessary to operate in society). 

The fact that the system is open means that the predication will not
necessarily be perfect, that a person as a casually efficacious being
may change therefore social institutions and society can change. 


John r
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Bergman [mailto:Ann.Bergman-AT-kau.se] 
Sent: Thursday, 14 August 2003 9:58 PM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: BHA: Predictions 


Hi,

I have a question about the use and relevance of predictions in social 
science. What I can understand of critical realism predictions are not 
useful since society is an open system. At the same time critical
realist 
argue for the importance of identifying structures and mechanisms which 
makes society to what it is and how it works. Is not the way it is and
how 
it works is in many ways predictable? We often know what to expect in 
certain situations or after a certain action is taken. Is it possible
for a 
critical realist to argue that the structured society and its durable 
patterns are in some way possible to predict. How do you think about
these 
issues?

Sorry for my terrible english
Mint 



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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named 
recipient(s) only and may contain privileged and confidential information. If 
received in error, please inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete 
this email and any copies from your computer system network.

If not an intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute or 
rely upon it and any form of disclosure, modification, distribution and/or 
publication of this email is prohibited.

Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only the views of the sender and 
not the views of the Queensland Government. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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