File spoon-archives/seminar-14.archive/marx-bhaskar_2001/seminar-14.0102, message 6


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005