Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:29:02
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Science and witchcraft


Hi Rewth,

At 11:30 PM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>hi lewis,
>
>yes.  i don't think i disagree with what you've written.  (do i 
>understand you correctly that you've basically re-stated what i said -- 
>viz., that (a) the argument "from ontology" is only good at the level of 
>the philosophy of science and (b) that RB has not yet himself given us a 
>lot to go on, in terms of theorizing what is involved in assessing 
>competing causal accounts?)
>
>but the worry about validity criteria seems still to be at large, no?
>r.

Re (a): Yes.

Re (b): No, if the competing causal accounts to be assessed are realism vs.
empiricism etc.  I think he has given us a lot to go on on that subject,
since it is at the heart of all his work, although as previous exchanges
showed there is still a lot to be done in the area of extending the theory
to social sciences etc.  But he does discuss validity criteria in great
detail at pp. 70-93 of "Scientific Realism & Human Emancipation".

However, if the competing causal accounts to be assessed are science vs.
witchcraft, then I think (i) the assessment is an intra-scientific matter,
(ii) the dichotomy is therefore a false one, (iii) the grounds for the
resolution fall outside the bounds of CR, and rightly so, so it is not a
just complaint against RB if he fails to provide the specific
intra-scientific tools.

Louis




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