>Again, I don't think this describes good empiricism. Effects don't
>reveal some hidden structure. They are the structure (or whatever you
>want to call it), and empiricism investigates them.
so, since this is so abstract (!), I'm curious if you could illustrate with something more concrete.
what is an effect that we can observe?
not being purposefully obtuse -- it's more along the lines i mentioned on the blog to you -- about speaking different languages, so wanting to be sure I understand and that I'm not taking what you say, weaving it into my own framework, and assuming I know what you mean.
and maybe I'm not really sure what Mike means by structure either -- though apparently we both work from Bhaskar a bit....
shag