Colin,
Kindly explain please what it is that makes the "epistemic fallacy" a
fallacy. That Bhaskar says it is? The "epistemic fallacy" is *not* a
generalized stipulation - like, say, arguing ad hominem or strawmanning.
>From which perspective is it one? From *one* (particularly irrelevant)
perspective within one (particularly irrelevant) side (the realist side)
within one (...) debate (philosophy of science) within one (...) school
of philosophy (analytic philosophy).
What, pray tell, is accomplished by applying the insights gained through
a cursory reading of a dictionary of philosophy to an inquiry that calls
the very conditions of those insights into question?
I need not spell out how you argue ad hominem, and you may not accept my
designation of your impressions as strawmanning, but that's exactly what
it is. Not that I especially care. But since you insist on invoking
rationalist criteria for argument, I thought I'd just point out how
singularly you fail to meet your own standard. (By which I mean both rule
of measurement and flag that one follows.)
Your attacks are based on a textualist approach to Foucault, gained
apparently by reading critiques of Foucault by people who miss the point.
If you want, I can provide a bibliography of places where Foucault argues
quite specifically against the "discursive idealist" position you are
attributing to him (and to quetzil). Not that you'd care, I suppose. And
far be it from me to try to stop a good rant by citing sources.
XOXOX
malcolm
Kindly explain please what it is that makes the "epistemic fallacy" a
fallacy. That Bhaskar says it is? The "epistemic fallacy" is *not* a
generalized stipulation - like, say, arguing ad hominem or strawmanning.
>From which perspective is it one? From *one* (particularly irrelevant)
perspective within one (particularly irrelevant) side (the realist side)
within one (...) debate (philosophy of science) within one (...) school
of philosophy (analytic philosophy).
What, pray tell, is accomplished by applying the insights gained through
a cursory reading of a dictionary of philosophy to an inquiry that calls
the very conditions of those insights into question?
I need not spell out how you argue ad hominem, and you may not accept my
designation of your impressions as strawmanning, but that's exactly what
it is. Not that I especially care. But since you insist on invoking
rationalist criteria for argument, I thought I'd just point out how
singularly you fail to meet your own standard. (By which I mean both rule
of measurement and flag that one follows.)
Your attacks are based on a textualist approach to Foucault, gained
apparently by reading critiques of Foucault by people who miss the point.
If you want, I can provide a bibliography of places where Foucault argues
quite specifically against the "discursive idealist" position you are
attributing to him (and to quetzil). Not that you'd care, I suppose. And
far be it from me to try to stop a good rant by citing sources.
XOXOX
malcolm