You are still making noises.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:23 amDo I really need to say this again?:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are still making noises without substantial arguments.
Show me where [posts I have made] I am ignorant of What is Scientific Realism and Critical Realism?
Rather it is you who is ignorant of Scientific Realism and Critical Realism proper.
For example, after shouting out loud that you have extensively researched realism, you admit of having "put aside" Critical Realism and just "having heard of Roy Bhaskar long ago", but you also then include one of his major works and other texts commenting his work (secondary sources as those that you dismiss when they go against Kant) among the list of your "extensive research" on realism. This list includes several anti-realist works, even though you claim it is realist literature. Absurd.
To put the cherry on top of it all, we get that your only real source for Bhaskar's realism is one chapter in one book, written by an assistant English teacher.
https://www.pittstate.edu/languages/fac ... -judd.htmlYou had to read the entire A Realist Theory of Science, not secondary sources, to understand the Critical Realism project, but since you avoided it, you are still ignorant. I did read it and studied it, so I do understand it and I'm able to comment on it, based on my extensive research.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am You are the one who is ignorant of the issues.
Note Kant in rejecting mind-independent thing-in-itself claimed science is still a possibility as presented in his CPR and the Prolegomena.
Example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/
Denying access to objects independent of minds do not necessary reject science.
If you still insist, show proof instead of making noises about it.Empirical evidence only makes sense as evidence, and science only becomes intelligible, when its objects exist in themselves. Otherwise, anything goes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:59 am The main leverage of Science is on empirical evidences not on the thing-in-itself.
The thing-in-itself is merely assumed by certain aspects of science, i.e. Newtonian Physicists and not by all physicists.
Anyone can still proceed with science without accepting the assumption of the thing-in-itself.
I stated I have read Chapter 9 of Bhaskar's Book,
not "one chapter from assistant English teacher" which you kept insisting upon;
- What is Critical Realism?
Chapter 9 in
Reclaiming Reality
A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy
Roy Bhaskar
- 1 The Emergence of Transcendental Realism
2 Transcendental Realism, Science and Scientific Realism
3 Transcendental Realism and Critical Naturalism: Limits on Naturalism And The Idea Of An Explanatory Critique
4 Critical Realism and Its Implications
- 1 The Emergence of Transcendental Realism
A Realist Theory of Science
Roy Bhaskar
Btw, I have this book as well.
If you are not sure, I can post the whole of Chapter 9 for you to refer.
If you have read it and studied it based on your extensive research, then you should be able to quote from that book [or any other of Bhaskar's work] to argue against the OP and also to quote Kant where relevant.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:23 am You had to read the entire A Realist Theory of Science, not secondary sources, to understand the Critical Realism project, but since you avoided it, you are still ignorant. I did read it and studied it, so I do understand it and I'm able to comment on it, based on my extensive research.
In his book, Thomas Judd make references to the following of Bhaskar's works;
- Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary
Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
—— (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London:
Verso.
—— (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
—— (1994) Plato Etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.
—— (1997) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.