From: "Greg Hall" <gregoryjayhall-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Similarities Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:47:28 -0700 Where does the knowledge come from which Bhaskar uses to criticize methodological individualism? Is it scientific knowledge, or what else could it be? The knowledge that Bhaskar uses to criticize methodological individualism seems transcendental realist knowledge. There seem to be two main arguments in the last reading section. The first is that individual actions cannot be understood without understanding the social context. Bhaskar writes, “Explanation, whether by subsumption under general laws, advertion to motives and rules, or redescription (identification), always involves irreducibly social predicates” (28). He comes to this conclusion by asking what must be the case for things like a tribesman or a cheque to be intelligible. Similarly, in RTS he asked what must be the case for scientific activity to be intelligible. The result was a transcendental realist ontology that makes possible scientific activity. In PON, the answer to his question is that there must be a society that is made up of relations between individuals. These relations are real causal factors in explaining social phenomena. It is only within this ontological type of society that concepts that seem to pertain to individuals can be understood. The second argument is that rationality does not explain any human behavior. Methodological individualism claims that all social phenomena are reducible and solely explainable in terms of actions of individuals. Bhaskar points out that the traditional attribute that makes humans different from other animals is rationality. Hence, one must explain social phenomena in terms of how people apply reason to their feelings or desires. Bhaskar points out that rationality may explain how humans do things, but it does not explain what they do. This explains nothing but is rather a presupposition of investigation (29). This similar to Bhaskar’s conception of laws or nature in RTS. In RTS, laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc. explain how physical reactions and bodies function, but it has no predictive ability. They prescribe limits on bodies, but do not prescribe what they do. Similarly, human rationality will explain how humans do things, but not exactly what they will do. This type of knowledge seems to be transcendental realist as well because they both explain how must underlying principles (reason or natural laws) function for surface level phenomena (behavior of humans or objects)to make sense. Is this knowledge scientific? I would say no. It is philosophical. It tries to discover knowledge about what we cannot empirically verify through our understanding of what we think we know. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005