From: Hans Ehrbar <econ-AT-lists.econ.utah.edu> Subject: Re: The premises extracted Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:58:14 -0700 Greg, Here are some comments about your second syllogism: > 4. If science is intelligible, the structures and constitutions and causal > laws that science discovers about the world must be expressed in thought, > but are not dependent on thought. > 5. Science is intelligible. > 6. The structures and constitutions and causal laws that science discovers > about the world must be expressed in thought, but are not dependent on > thought. (from 4-5) Bhaskar often phrases his arguments in the words: if science is intelligible (which means, capable of being understood), then this and this must be the case. But to my knowledge he never asserts or argues that science must be intelligible. My take on this is the following (and if anyone in this list knows a better explanation, please speak up. Even rephrasing or repeating might be helpful): if the process of science is not intelligible then any attempts to argue rationally about it are futile, and we all can pack up and go home. Therefore the whole book is based on the assumption that science is intelligible. But this is only an assumption; it is the recognition that all our arguments are fallible. The intelligibility assumption is always there when we make a logical argument about anything. But it does not give us much mileage; it is there as a precaution and a reminder that there may be things in this world that are not accessible to rational scientific argument. The mileage comes from Bhaskar concretely looking at how science is being done. Therefore I would make your first syllogism more specific. You formulated it as follows: > 1. If science occurs, then the world exists and is a certain way. > 2. Science does occur. > 3. It is necessary that the world exists and is a certain way. (from 1-2) We not only know that science "occurs" (by which Bhaskar means it does what it thinks it does, namely successfully gain knowledge about the world), but we also know that science entails very specific activities, which require long training, etc. Therefore the premise is rather 1. If science occurs through experimental activity etc., then the world exists and is a certain way. The specific character of actual scientific activity can teach us a lot about the "certain way" the world must be. The whole of RTS develops what we can learn about the world from looking at the character of scientific activity. But this is the point where it might be helpful to extract or isolate the arguments; write them up more succinctly so that they are easier to recognize. Any takers? Here is a question to the experts on Critial Realism lurking on this list, or anyone else: without going back to the text, which of the arguments made there stick most in your mind, are most convincing to you? Hans. --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005