>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.
If one thinks that the criterion of truth of X is that X is taken seriously by philosophers one likes, though, one indeed ends up confirming Rorty-like pragmatism. What matters is a local consensus!
Yoshie