Popperism (was Chomsky -- Put up or blah blah)

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

I think Harre is pretty good, not great. Bhaskhar was his student and his "discovery." Sayer and Manicas I don't know. In the philosophy of science worlds where I worked in England and America, B is not on the radar screen. I should emphasize that I am not narrowly American here; i studied with Marry Hesse, Nick Jardine, Gerd Buchdahl, David Papineau, that lot, at Cabridge History and Philosophy of Science. Nor is that a narrowly "analytical" crowd. 

OK, I've stated my view. People who want to read B and discuss him can do so, but I won't participate. I thinki he's a waste of time,

--jks

In a message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2000  8:25:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, bhandari at Princeton.EDU (Rakesh Bhandari) writes:

<< Justin, doesn't Rom Harre take Bhaskar quite seriously? Haven't read much
Bhaskar at all. Just going by his intro to the philosophy of science, Harre
is obviously a very serious and accomplished thinker--so his opinion, if
indeed favorable of Bhaskar, should count.  And there's that excellent book
on Method in the Social Science by Andrew Sayer who is influenced by
Bhaskar. Peter Manicas' imposingly erudite History and Philosophy of the
Social Sciences is also influenced by Bhaskar.
Yours, Rakesh

 >>