Amazon.com: A Realist Theory of Science (Radical Thinkers) (9781844672042): Roy Bhaskar: BooksFirst Faved : 10 days ago by tfwrightFaved : 1 time with noteViewed : 3 timesFave It!
Faves for this Web page
- tfwright - 10 days ago | philosophy, science
this book has been referenced several times by SR folk. anyone read it?
Quoted: Amazon.com: A Realist Theory of Science (Radical Thinkers) (9781844672042): Roy Bhaskar: Books
Already a user? Sign In
Add a Fave for this Web page
- What happens when I press Publish?
- Your Fave for this Web page gets shared with the Faves community. You can access it at any time by selecting "My Faves" from the menu above.
- Why do you ask for my email address?
- We use your email address to create an account, so you can easily find your Fave again at a later time.
Related Content from Around Faves
science
-
Dr. Jim Roberts profile.
1 FaverViewed: 29 Times - tfwright - 5 days ago1 FaverViewed: 4 Times
- shiwani - 8 days ago1 FaverViewed: 26 Times
visualization
-
Baseball visualizations galore.
1 FaverViewed: 6 TimesQuoted: Flip Flop Fly Ball. Baseball infographics and other visual treats.
- yellow_blue - Aug 04 20073 FaversViewed: 28 Times
- ku0522 - Dec 28 20071 FaverViewed: 12 Times
no. but i will say that simply declaring a realism assertorically, without critiquing the image of thought that ensured the de jure complicity of thought with its object, gets us nowhere. and i've started to sniff a fraud in a lot of this speculative realism stuff on exactly this point. could be just me though.
no, i haven't read this one yet. I have meant to as this guy has written some stuff on Marxism and a bunch of English Marxists, especially Alex Callinicos, have been making a big deal about this guy. I read an essay of his once, but didn't finish it. I don't remember why, other than getting annoyed at the basic project of the book. I still want to read it though - just to know what some other Marxists are taking about.
k, you may be interested in levi's recent post on critique, though i'm not sure he finally avoids such an assertoric approach. i think the same fundamental issue plague the latour i've been reading lately when he begins to outline the actual philosophical argument behind his concept of sociology against critical sociology (which in reassembling at least he very unsatisfyingly try to gets around by 'simply asserting' a position of reflexivity). i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts...