The mistrepresenttauion is that the man has something to ssy. --jks
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, David Mertz wrote:
> Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > Bhaskar is a fraud.
> A fraud?!
> I don't get it (I happen also to be a once philosopher of science)
> I would agree that Bhasker is *wrong*. Or that his reputation for
> profundity is a bit exagerated. But I cannot quite figure out where
> actual misrepresentation occurs in Bhaskar's books.
> Yours, David Mertz