> The only real problem I've
>had with the book is it's distracting minutiae which do nothing to
>enliven the dialogue between the 2 and the use of Bhaskar's philosophy
>of science, which is problematic to say the least....
Can you easily summarize how it's problematic for you? I actually just borrowed Andrew Collier's intro to RB (which everyone says is enormously helpful to read before plunging into RB's actual texts), and it might be helpful to read it with the hermeneutics of Ian's suspicion in the back of my mind.
Maureen