Fay
Fay seems to do a great job of being open-minded, careful not to get trapped in black and whites. He seems to reject true Nomologicalism and Historicism with the basic assumption that they are just to direct and leave no flexibility or shades of grey. I feel he does a great job with criticizing and analyzing all concepts of an issue, i wonder if this is common or he faces scrutiny for being on the fence with issues...something i believe is not a bad thing especially when we discuss a topic as dynamic as relativism.
Does Fay really reject the two theories? I understood him to say we needed both. If so, would it change what you think of Fay?
I agree with Ann. I dont believe he really rejects either of the theories he simply says there is a need for both to be present for them perdict the appropiate info.
yea sorry, i also agree with both of you, what i meant to say is he seems to reject both on a full fledged scale. Saying that you really can't have one with out the other so they are not mutually exclusive at all.
I agree that Fay treats things pretty even-handedly. I think this is a good approach. It's always seemed to me there was a shred of wisdom in everything I have read. Sometimes you have to look hard. But, when I feel like rejecting something that a reasonable number of others have some faith in, I think perhaps I have just not understood it.