Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:37:13 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: foundationalism; a priori; PON


Hi Ruth

> I'm pretty sure that I've accurately stated what he says there.

Although it's self-evident, it's stressed by Bhaskar in a number of 
places that referential detachment only occurs if the scientists make a 
genuine discovery, i.e. fallibilism applies. Your  ""whatever scientists 
agree upon is thereby 'referentially detached'" therefore at the very 
least needs qualifying, especially in the context of a charge of 
"scientism".

>Though I don't think that it conficts with what you've said, about him 
>asserting that scientists presuppose the concept of alethic truth as he 
>defines it.

I didn't say anything about Bhaskar asserting this. I myself claimed and 
hold (like him and others) that the reality (not concept) of alethic 
truth is a transcendentally necessary presupposition of what scientists 
do, and you were indicating dissent from this whole position were you 
not?

Mervyn


"Groff, Ruth" <ruth.groff-AT-marquette.edu> writes
>Hi Mervyn,
>
>I've been over the the agreement -> referential detachment -> alethic 
>truth progression pretty many times.  I'm pretty sure that I've 
>accurately stated what he says there.  (Though I don't think that it 
>conficts with what you've said, about him asserting that scientists 
>presuppose the concept of alethic truth as he defines it.)
>
>I can't argue the Taylor thing in the abstract.  It's just a very good 
>discussion of precisely the approach to justification that people have 
>been proposing.
>
>Yikes!  Gotta run!
>
>r.



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