Randomized Clinical Trials in the medical community are generally lasting longer due to a number of factors, including an increase in the total volume of biomedical research, expanded federal regulatory requirements, and a rise in patient interest in participating as research subjects. Leading national and international initiatives promote clinical research in children. The primary impetus for these initiatives is the need for adequate data for clinical application of new products and treatment approaches in the pediatric population. Clinical investigations must maintain (...) ethical conduct as an essential component of pediatric research.Ethical issues associated with clinical research in general have received prominent public and scientific attention. Of particular interest is informed consent, or assent, as applied to pediatrics. There is little practical guidance concerning pediatric assent from legal and ethical disciplines; the law has played only a small role in few cases. (shrink)

Re-assent of adolescent females enrolled in clinical research through the onset of puberty is necessary to respect their rights to access sexual and reproductive health information, their rights under HIPAA as well as assuring compliance with the Common Rule.

Generalized empirical method -- Knowledge and our limits: Lonergan and Williamson -- Aesthetics: insights from Eldridge, Aquinas and Lonergan -- Cartwright, critical realism, and the laws of science -- Scott Soames on meaning: a critical realist response -- Lonergan on meaning.

Today a variety of theological approaches offer fresh and enriching insights, yet much of contemporary religious thought can be disorienting for the beginning student of theology. This accessible introduction presents aspects of the thought of Fr. Bernard Lonergan SJ, (1904–1984) in a way that makes his vital contribution to contemporary theology accessible to the beginning student. The author minimizes technical terms and explains basic ideas with user-friendly examples. Rather than a survey of diverse contemporary theological opinions, or a thematic (...) presentation of one topic, the book tries to clear away confusions by focusing on the theologian concerned with those topics. The book will thus encourage creative ways of overcoming some of the unnecessary obstacles for students who want to explore theology today. (shrink)

My scientific field is theoretical physics. My philosophical orientation is phenomenology, especially hermeneutical phenomenology, as modified and extended under the influence of Bernard Lonergan's cognitional theory. In fact, I was already deeply under the influence of Bernard Lonergan's workbefore I went to Louvain/Leuven to study phenomenology as a propaedeutic to my preparation in the philosophy of science. The specific topic of this paper is one close to the center of Philip's interest, namely, to articulate the right balance among (...) theory, experiment, and what Husserl called 'die Sache selbst' or the 'givenness' of scientific objects as experienced and understood. The method I shall adopt is that of Husserl's phenomenology of perception, as modified by Lonergan's method of 'self-appropriation.' I will be concerned then with the 'constitution' of experimental data in science - any science. (shrink)

Increasingly, nurses conduct scientific inquiry into complex health‐care problems by collaborating on teams with researchers from other highly specialized fields. As cross‐disciplinary research proliferates and becomes institutionalized globally, researchers will increasingly encounter the need to integrate their particular research perspectives within inquiries without sacrificing the potential contributions of their discipline‐specific expertise. The work of the philosopher Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) offers the necessary philosophical grounding. Here, I defend a role for philosophy in cross‐disciplinary research and present selected ideas in (...) class='Hi'>Lonergan's work. These include: (1) a dynamic, normative pattern that each inquirer operates uniquely also forms the common core, or unity, in knowing; (2) the possibility of cross‐disciplinary knowledge development is dependent on each researcher's consciousness of her or his attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, and responsibleness; and (3) shifts in researchers' viewpoints, or horizons, facilitate their collaborative inquiry and their grasp of the unity in knowing. The desire to know, shared by team members, drives their inquiry. Lonergan's stance is consistent with nursing values because it respects, but does not unconditionally privilege, any researcher or discipline. Arguments support a claim that Lonergan's perspective is well suited to guide nurse researchers participating on cross‐disciplinary health research teams. (shrink)

Explicates the philosophy of religion emerging from the work of Bernard Lonergan, the esteemed theologian who reinvigorated Catholic thought in the twentieth century.

Jesuit philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan advocated a critical realism, in which scientific and theological knowledge are products of self-critical phenomenological analysis. Allying his thought with Thomas Aquinas in elaborating a cognitional theory to serve epistemology and metaphysics, Lonergan challenged reigning idealist and empiricist philosophies by understanding the human knower as ordered both to the known world and to divine providence. This paper will sketch four themes in which Lonergan constructs a methodical link between phenomenology and both (...) contemporary science and theology. Lonergan does not embody the frequently cited idea of a rupture in Catholic thought from pre-Vatican II to post-conciliar thought, notably in his treatment of science and religion. (shrink)

Over the past thirty-odd years, the feminist contribution of the ethic of care has changed the way in which scholars and ‘lay people’ think about and approach ethical practices in our contemporary society. These changes are important in two significant ways. First, the contribution of feminist work to the body of ethics as a whole is a valuable addition. Second, by drawing attention to the concrete context of moral decision-making, particularly the notion of care, feminist scholars have opened the door (...) for meaningful discussion and understanding of the word care as it is involved in moral decision-making. The latter is where Lonergan’s theory of ethics is most beneficial.The article is written in four sections. It begins with a brief review of a feminist perspective on the ethic of care; a second section explores Lonergan’s identification of levels of consciousness as relevant to feminist notions of care; a third section explores the influence of Aquinas on Lonergan’s theory of ethics and richly applies this fuller context (linking feelings, plans, actions and decisions) to feminist contributions; a final section enlarges significantly on the meaning of the word care by introducing Lonergan’s idea of functional specialization as an ‘ethic of ethics’ that will care about the field of ethics in a radically new way. (shrink)

Bernard Lonergan não menciona Joseph Maréchal nos seus escritos, apesar de ter sido por ele influenciado no que respeita à estrutura dinâmica do conhecimento. Apesar disso, há que reconhecer que a intenção de Maréchal não era a de Lonergan. Maréchal, formado em biologia e em psicologia, desejava participar no movimento de renovação do tomismo, o qual na sua época era fortemente intelectualista. O seu esforço juntou-se ao do Maurice Blondel afirmando os direitos do acto comprometido nos processos cognitivos. (...) O desejo natural de conhecer Deus não se dá sem um desejo vital que dinamiza também a vontade em que ele se exprime de forma mais pura e genuína. Lonergan, cujo objectivo era a construção de uma epistemologia da teologia, ocupou-se primordialmente dos procedimentos próprios das ciências. Para ele, o desejo de conhecer leva o sujeito cognoscente a ultrapassar todas as ciências particulares, proporcionadas às nossas funções cognitivas, em direcção ao ser, concebido este de forma adequada como a totalidade presente e futura dos conteúdos do saber. Segundo o autor do artigo, Lonergan estaria, assim, mais próximo de Maréchal do que este de Suárez. /// Bernard Lonergan does not mention Joseph Maréchal in his writings, even though he received his influence regarding the dynamic structure of knowledge. However, the intention of Maréchal was not the intention of Lonergan. Maréchal, who had studied biology and psychology, wanted to participate in the movement of renewal of Thomism, which at the time was strongly intellectualist. His effort conjoined with the effort of Maurice Blondel in the recognition of the rights of the act inherent to the cognitive processes. The natural desire to know God does not come to be without a vital desire that also animates the will in which it comes to a better expression of itself. Lonergan, whose aim was the elaboration of an epistemology of theology, occupied himself primordially with the scientific processes. The desire to know leads the knowing subject beyond all the particular sciences, proportioned to our cognitive functions, toward being, which is adequately conceived as the present and future totality of the contents of knowledge. Hence, according to the author or the article, we might think that Lonergan was closer to Marechal than Marechal was to Suárez. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) profoundly influences a number of societal structures today, including religious dynamics. Using Bernard Lonergan’s critical realism as a lens, this article investigates the intersections of AI and religious traditions in their shared pursuit of the common good. Beginning with Lonergan’s principle that humans construct their understanding through cognitive processes, we examine how AI-mediated realities align with or challenge traditional religious tenets. By delving into specific cases, we spotlight AI’s role in reshaping religious symbols, rituals, and (...) even creating novel spiritual meanings. Using Lonergan’s insights on the balance between subjectivity and objectivity, I analyze AI’s potential to both create new sacred spaces and challenge religious orthodoxy. The crux of the discussion centers on the negotiation between religious values and technological innovation, assessing how AI can bolster religious life while maintaining its core essence. Ultimately, this article underscores the importance of the common good in the age of AI-driven religious evolution. (shrink)

I am in the process of refining my doctorate thesis objective, having battled through a Master’s degree in the Philosophy of Language. The doctoral issue, of course, has many facets: political, academic, locational, and financial. But the topic relevant to this paper is the issue of “interpretation” raised by Lonergan in the third section of chapter 17 of Insight . The challenge of this paper (and this volume) is to lift that section into the context of hodic conversion.

Twentieth-century Canadian philosopher Bernard J. F. Lonergan and nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel regarded themselves as Aristotelian thinkers. As Aristotelians, both affirmed that human knowing is essentially a matter of knowing by identity: in the act of knowing, the knower and the known are formally identical. In spite of their common Aristotelian background and their common commitment to the idea that human knowing is knowing by identity, Lonergan and Hegel also differed on a number of crucial (...) points. This essay discusses some key similarities and differences between Lonergan and Hegel on the issue knowing, in the hope that such a discussion might uncover a few possible avenues for further philosophical dialogue about these two important thinkers. (shrink)

In this paper I call attention to the fact that Lonergan gives two radically opposed accounts of how sense perception relates us to the external world and of how we know that this relation exists. I argue that the position that Lonergan characteristically adopts is not the one implied by what is most fundamental in his theory of cognition. I describe the initial epistemic position with regard to the problem of skepticism about the external material world that is (...) in fact implied by his theory of cognition, and I sort out some confusion about various forms of direct and representative perceptual realism. The paper concludes with a critique of Lonergan’s theory of description and explanation in empirical science that makes evident the difficulties into which he is led by lack of clarity in his theory of perception. (shrink)

Lindbeck's difficulties with Lonergan's account of religion stem from his radical methodological option in which he draws on Wittgenstein. I revisit ‘the dialectic of methods,’ by examining children's mistakes. I use Lonergan's distinction between ordinary and originary meaningfulness to argue that in Wittgenstein's account of rule-following such mistakes highlight the publicity of norms in ordinary meaningfulness, but I show how alternatives can be cited in which originary meaningfulness is not obscured. I explain the core of Lonergan's foundational (...) methodology and show how for Lonergan the desire to understand is an exigence which, as retorsion indicates, is difficult to deny. I conclude that in his account of religion Lonergan has an answer to a question posed by Wittgenstein on the purpose of thinking. (shrink)

Bernard Lonergan's ambitious study of human knowledge, based on his theory of consciousness, is among the major achievements of twentieth-century philosophy. He challenges the principles of contemporary intellectual culture by finding norms and standards not in external perceptions or reified concepts, but in the dynamism of consciousness itself. _Lonergan and the Philosophy of Historical Existence_ explores the implications of Lonergan's approach to the philosophy of history in a number of distinct but related contexts, covering a variety of intellectual (...) disciplines. Each chapter can be read independently, but the series of chapters provides a coherent unfolding of Lonergan's case that the norms of inquiry endure as a standard of human thought and action amid continuous changes and fluctuations in politics, morals, religion, science, and scholarship. The book explains how Lonergan's idea of development follows from his theory of consciousness and how his treatment of human development inevitably focuses on historical development. The central theme of the book is that Lonergan's philosophy of history makes a pronounced distinction between historicity and historicism. McPartland relates Lonergan's work to existentialist themes and, in the last chapters, to the work of Eric Voegelin. The book addresses the existentialist themes of dread, suffering, guilt, shame, and _resentiment_—within overall themes of history, philosophy, and religion. McPartland argues that Lonergan's unique perspective on scientific method, epistemology, metaphysics, and critical theory can illuminate what seem to be the quite alien topics of reason as religious experience, the anxiety of existence, the existential roots of bias, and mythopoesis and mystery. Here there is a remarkable parallel to the philosophy of history of Eric Voegelin. The concluding chapters of the book show how the equivalence of the two philosophies offers a mutually enriching dialogue between Lonergan's critical realism and Voegelin's existential exegesis. (shrink)

Lindbeck's difficulties with Lonergan's account of religion stem from his radical methodological option in which he draws on Wittgenstein. I revisit ‘the dialectic of methods,’ by examining children's mistakes. I use Lonergan's distinction between ordinary and originary meaningfulness to argue that in Wittgenstein's account of rule-following such mistakes highlight the publicity of norms in ordinary meaningfulness, but I show how alternatives can be cited in which originary meaningfulness is not obscured. I explain the core of Lonergan's foundational (...) methodology and show how for Lonergan the desire to understand is an exigence which, as retorsion indicates, is difficult to deny. I conclude that in his account of religion Lonergan has an answer to a question posed by Wittgenstein on the purpose of thinking. (shrink)

In this article I explore Bernard Lonergan’s characteristic view that there is an isomorphism between intellect and reality such that the set of relations embedded in the cognitional process are replicated by the elements of metaphysics . My exploration is with a view to the Gilsonian objection to the critical realist project as a whole, to the effect that one cannot begin with idealism and end with realism. In this article I argue that, despite my broad sympathy for (...) class='Hi'>Lonergan’s epistemological thought, his notion of isomorphism between intellect and reality distances him somewhat from Thomistic metaphysics. (shrink)

This paper proposes that the philosophy of Bernard Lonergan can provide insight into the challenge of integrating nursing theory, research and practice. The author discusses Lonergan's work in regard to reflective understanding, authenticity and the human person as a subject of consciously developing unity. This is followed by a discussion of two key elements in Lonergan's work that relate to nursing: the subject–object challenge of nursing inquiry and common sense vs. scientific knowledge. The author suggests that integration (...) of nursing theory, science and practice may be achieved through self-transcendence. (shrink)

In three parts, this paper seeks 1) to provide a synopsis of Bernard Lonergan‟s proof for the existence of God as presented in chapter nineteen of Insight, 2) to explain how Lonergan later came to critique his approach in Insight 19 in light of subsequent philosophical developments, and 3) to assess the ongoing relevance of Lonergan‟s Insight 19 argument given that aforementioned critique.The issues discussed in this paper are important for a variety of reasons.First, Lonergan‟s argument (...) for the existence of God may in fact be a sound argument. Second, Lonergan prefaced his argument with the incredibly bold and enticing claim that while arguments for the existence of God are many, all such arguments are implicitly included in the general form of his own argument.And third, however one may assess the preceding claim, the second and third parts ofthis paper will raise fundamental questions regarding the function and existential significance of any philosophical proof for the existence of God, and by doing sowill contribute to contemporary discussions concerning the relevance of philosophical theology. (shrink)

Bernard Lonergan’s account of the polymorphic character of consciousness provides a basis for distinguishing the common sense, scientific, artistic, and ethical elements present in engineering. These elements regard “the same real objects,” but do so from fundamentally different standpoints. In relating these standpoints to the underlying “procedures of the human mind,” Lonergan’s work provides a valuable tool for mapping both the unity and diversity of engineering.

I follow the editor’s suggestion in dividing this essay into sections dealing with a) content, b) context, c) personal context. However, I break the personal reflections into two sections that bracket the presentation of content and context. So, sections 1 and 4 present my personal perspective; section 2 is a shot at a hypothetical expression of the content of Lonergan’s meaning of complete; section 3 handles the context problem. The immediately relevant expressed contexts for the effort here are The (...) Sketch in Insight and page 250 of Method in Theology . The Sketch speaks of content and context of an interpretation; the page pushes discomfortingly for a personal stand. (shrink)

Bernard Lonergan's Insight: A Study of Human Understanding is one of the most profound and challenging books of the 20th century. This book is a comprehensive explanation, commentary and criticism of this work, which no one, according to the author, has previously attempted.

Gaven Kerr argues that Lonergan is a metaphysical realist but follows an inherently idealist method. Furthermore, Kerr claims, Lonergan’s isomorphism of cognitional and ontological elements does not hold, because ontological act is not parallel to cognitional judgment. In so arguing, however, Kerr conflates ontological act with efficient causality, misunderstands the nature of the parallel asserted by Lonergan’s isomorphism, and involves himself in a priori speculation about the implications of Lonergan’s method. An efficient cause is an extrinsic (...) principle, whereas “act” names an intrinsic constituent of contingent being. The parallel between ontological and cognitional composition, moreover, and the isomorphism of ontological and cognitional elements, are subtler than Kerr appreciates. The suspicion, finally, that Lonergan’s method is somehow inherently idealist is idle and not borne out by the facts. (shrink)

One of the defining characteristics of Kant’s “critical philosophy” is what has been called the “critique of immediacy” or the rejection of the “myth of the given.” According to the Kantian position, no object can count as an object for a human knower apart from the knower’s own activity or spontaneity. That is, no object can count as an object for a human knower on the basis of the object’s givenness alone. But this gives rise to a problem: how is (...) it possible to accept the Kantian critique of immediacy while also giving an epistemologically adequate account of the constrained or finite character of human knowing (i.e., an account that does not rely on some appeal to what is simply “given”)? This paper examines how this crucial question is addressed (with more or less success) in the “critical philosophies” of Kant, Lonergan, and Fichte. (shrink)

In this paper I call attention to the fact that Lonergan gives two radically opposed accounts of how sense perception relates us to the external world and of how we know that this relation exists. I argue that the position that Lonergan characteristically adopts is not the one implied by what is most fundamental in his theory of cognition. I describe the initial epistemic position with regard to the problem of skepticism about the external material world that is (...) in fact implied by his theory of cognition, and I sort out some confusion about various forms of direct and representative perceptual realism. The paper concludes with a critique of Lonergan’s theory of description and explanation in empirical science that makes evident the difficulties into which he is led by lack of clarity in his theory of perception. (shrink)

The first essay is one of the most influential papers ever written on Lonergan; it and the second one inquire into the notion of the a priori. The third essay presents a detailed analysis of Kantian intuitionism and contrasts it with the 'knowledge as structure' position of Lonergan's critical realism. In this essay intuitionism is generalized, to allow Sala to address representatives of neoscholasticism as well. The argument with neoscholasticism continues in the fourth essay.

In Insight, an essay on human understanding, Lonergan presents a heuristic model of emerging probability in order to define, explain and extract norms from the dynamism common to all nature, including human nature, a dynamism that mirrors the reality of intellection. Continuity between different levels of nature discloses a directed, upward, but indeterminate dynamism of the emerging generalized probability. In addition to the ethical consequences that he elaborates, Lonergan remains in an open hermeneutic framework, beyond being proportionate to (...) discursive reason; he opens the way for a surprising final manifestation of this universal dynamism through what he calls transcendent conjugated forms of generalized probability emerging – faith, hope and charity – that are proposed to human freedom. (shrink)

This essay offers a critical examination of Neil Ormerod’s treatment of the debate between Lonergan and Gilson on the question of being. Although this debate concerns a highly technical issue of metaphysics and epistemology, it remains germane and relevant, especially within the field of Christian thought. In Ormerod’s careful and for the most part generous examination of this debate, he argues that being for Gilson is perceived through the senses, whereas for Lonergan being is intended in the questions (...) that arise from the relevant sense data. Where Gilson’s philosophy gives priority to the metaphysics of being, Lonergan gives priority to epistemology and cognitional theory. In arguing for the superiority of Lonergan’s approach to the question of being, Ormerod relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Gilson’s metaphysics. By appeal to the more recent work of Kenneth Schmitz, this essay proposes a proper understanding of Gilson’s metaphysics as a basis for a more conciliatory relationship between these two giants in modern Christian philosophy who too often are pitted against one another. (shrink)

Lonergan's Early Economic Research delves into the origins of Bernard Lonergan's economic theory through his own writing on the subject. Michael Shute provides transcriptions of many of Lonergan's private files on economics for a deeper understanding of his groundbreaking macroeconomic theory. An introduction by the editor contextualizes the works, which also serve as archival materials relevant to the companion volume Lonergan's Discovery of the Science of Economics. Organized around specific themes such as dialectic of history, methodology, (...) economic history, and price equilibrium, the book makes available a substantial amount of previously unpublished texts. Materials include Lonergan's earliest notes on economics prior to his move to Rome in 1933, the complete surviving portion of 'An Essay in Fundamental Sociology, ' and notes on economists Heinrich Pesch and Lionel Robbins, among others. These early works show that Lonergan built his economic discoveries on the methodological developments that he founded in his writings on the philosophy of history. (shrink)

This article revisits ideas of Charles Peirce, who wrote at the turn of the nineteenth century, and Bernard Lonergan, who wrote at the turn of the twentieth, with the purpose of connecting important dots in their thinking. The goal of this comparison is to show how the two ground metaphysics in the practices of the sciences and common sense. The article argues that the metaphysical framework the two scholars developed in opposition to nominalism can be used to overcome the (...) reductionism that hinders modern efforts to think metaphysically as well to as promote fruitful dialogue between theology and philosophy. (shrink)

In recent metaethical debate over ways to justify the notion of intrinsic natural value, some neopragmatists have challenged realist conceptions of scientific and moral truth. Holmes Rolston defends a critical-realist epistemology as the basis for a metaphysics of "projective nature" and a cosmological narrative--both of which set up a historical ontology of objective natural value. Pure ecological science informs the wilderness experience of Rolston's ideal epistemic subject, the "sensitive naturalist." The author argues that Rolston's account of the relation between knowing (...) and valuing can be clarified and strengthened by appropriating Bernard Lonergan's transcendental method. Conversely, Lonergan's view of moral self-transcendence can be developed further in light of Rolston's virtue epistemology, which is embodied in the figure of the sensitive naturalist. (shrink)

Although Bernard Lonergan is known primarily for his cognitional theory and theological methodology, he long sought to formulate a modern philosophy of history free of progressive and Marxist biases. Yet he never addressed this in any single work, and his reflections on the subject are scattered in various writings. In this pioneering work, Thomas McPartland shows how Lonergan’s overall philosophical position offers a fresh and comprehensive basis for considering historiography. Taking Lonergan’s philosophy of historical existence into the (...) realm of an epistemological philosophy of history, he demonstrates how the philosopher’s approach builds on the actual performance of historians and, as a result, integrates the insights of historical specialists into a framework of functional complementarity. McPartland draws on all of Lonergan’s philosophical writing—as well as on the vast literature of historiography—to detail Lonergan’s notions of historical method, historical objectivity, and historical knowledge. Along the way, he explains what Lonergan means by hermeneutics; by historical description, explanation, ideal-types, and narrative; by evaluative and dialectical analyses; and how these elements are all functionally related to each other. He also delineates the defining features of psychohistory, cultural history, intellectual history, history of ideas, and history of philosophy, indicating how these disciplines play complementary roles in the critical encounter with the past. Ultimately, McPartland argues that Lonergan has established the principles of a historical discipline—the history of consciousness—that weaves together a philosophy of consciousness with rigorous historical research to grasp long-term trends resulting from “differentiations of consciousness.” His work offers a distinct perspective on historical method that takes historical objectivity seriously while providing new insight into the thought of this important philosopher. (shrink)

Comparisons that have been made between the philosophies of Martin Heidegger and Bernard Lonergan on such topics as transcendence, authenticity, and the inadequacies of substance metaphysics are justified, but they must be understood against the background of a disagreement over the meaning and role of ontological difference. A reading of Heidegger that emphasizes the negative or recessive aspect of the ontological “lighting” or “clearing” in being puts this disagreement into sharp relief and forms a charge against Lonergan of (...) “forgetfulness of being.” A response to the charge is offered in the form of three approximations, focusing, respectively, on the way that Lonergan uses the term, “intelligibility,” the role he gives to question, and the way he finds ontological significance in a particular range of intentional acts. (shrink)

The book relies on Bernard Lonergan’s method. It addresses today’s religious conflicts in the Middle East which have led to migrations of millions of persons. It systematically explores possible breakthroughs that might help people open their hearts to one another.

The aim of this paper is to note the convergence between two critical realist philosophies of science, namely, that of Roy Bhaskar and Bernard Lonergan with regard to the intelligibility of experimental activity. Bhaskar very explicitly argues that ‘differentiation implies stratification.’ The idea is that because the situations produced in laboratories are special instances of closure the significance of experimental activity is that it brings about regularities with a view to understanding scientific laws at a deeper level. This is (...) to say, when experiment is properly understood, the weaknesses of empiricism are exposed. Although he is not as explicit, Lonergan also has recourse to this argument. The parallels between Bhaskar and Lonergan are not surprising given the Aristotelian heritage that is manifest in their common concern for a realist ontology. Nevertheless, some differences between the two emerge, for example, in Lonergan's concern with the development of statistical science, and as well, a firm commitment to substance. Some attention to the significance of experimental activity for the debate surrounding realism is explored; it is suggested that Lonergan has something to offer in the subsequent conversation associated with Maxwell, van Fraassen, Hacking and Cartwright. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to note the convergence between two critical realist philosophies of science, namely, that of Roy Bhaskar and Bernard Lonergan with regard to the intelligibility of experimental activity. Bhaskar very explicitly argues that ‘differentiation implies stratification.’ The idea is that because the situations produced in laboratories are special instances of closure (like the solar system in the open universe, they do not represent the general case) the significance of experimental activity is that it brings (...) about regularities with a view to understanding scientific laws at a deeper level. This is to say, when experiment is properly understood, the weaknesses of empiricism are exposed. Although he is not as explicit, Lonergan also has recourse to this argument. The parallels between Bhaskar and Lonergan are not surprising given the Aristotelian heritage that is manifest in their common concern for a realist ontology. Nevertheless, some differences between the two emerge, for example, in Lonergan's concern with the development of statistical science, and as well, a firm commitment to substance (rather than to powers, simply). Some attention to the significance of experimental activity for the debate surrounding realism is explored; it is suggested that Lonergan has something to offer in the subsequent conversation associated with Maxwell, van Fraassen, Hacking and Cartwright. (shrink)

L'article examine la relation de Bernard Lonergan à John Henry Newman, son premier inspirateur intellectuel. Il cherche à aller plus loin que les questions de références explicites ou des influences directes pour identifier les domaines majeurs òu les deux penseurs ont des affinités, ce qui inclut les limitations de la logique, l'attention aux structures cognitives, la centralité du jugement, la dialectique de l'autotranscendance que dévient des attitudes erronées, le parallèle entre l'assentiment réel et la conversion. Lonergan s'appropria et (...) transforma les fondements libérateurs qu'il découvrit au long de sa lecture de jeunesse de Newman. Un même ligne de pensée, empirique et psychologique, caractérise les deux auteurs, mais Lonergan va au delà des vastes catégories descriptives de Newman afin d'ouvrir des horizons plus larges à l'exploration de la méthode et de l'intériorité. (shrink)