This is a very rich response. Thank you. I’ll pick up the final point, as I think that’s the core (correct me if I’m wrong). The key word in my article is ‘material constraints’. Logical positivism split into other forms, but that didn’t generate closure. It just reframed the problem. Engineers converge on solutions because if they don’t the bridge collapses. But there is no convergence on moral realism etc.
This is a very rich response. Thank you. I’ll pick up the final point, as I think that’s the core (correct me if I’m wrong). The key word in my article is ‘material constraints’. Logical positivism split into other forms, but that didn’t generate closure. It just reframed the problem. Engineers converge on solutions because if they don’t the bridge collapses. But there is no convergence on moral realism etc.