The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this
reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: beda pietanza: "Re: Models are not necessarily facsimiles of so-called reality"
- Next in thread: beda pietanza: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: beda pietanza: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Jan 2005 06:36:35 -0800
beda pietanza wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1104457969.100254.47410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
[snip]
> > > >
> > > > Name one secret of Nature?
> > >
> > > The genome.
> >
> > What's so 'holy' about the genome? It mustn't have been very secret
if
> > it could be found out.
> ????
To call any physical concept a "secret of the universe" objectifies the
concept without proof. Just because a theoretical concept or technique
works doesn't make it "true" in the realist sense. Physics can't tell
us what's true of deep reality. It takes truth to beget truth. Do the
logic.
[snip]
> >
> > You need to get the three terms straight:
> >
> > objective
> > subjective
> > intersubjective
>
> You should use some fuzzy logic when needed, those terms are not
neatly
> distict and case by case may overlap somehow.
>
> >
> > Science is never objective, though the belief that it is, is one of
the
> > biggest misconceptions about science that most people have.
>
> science is subjective sure but also "intersubjectively subjective"
and at
> same time "intersubjectively objective"depend on the " object under
> scrutiny, here again some fuzzy logic is welcome.
It's the theory that invents/defines the ontology of "what can exist"!
(Metaphysics is about what does exist.) The theory builds its models
based on that ontology. Of course, in the mind of an instrumentalist
that ontology is purely formal (an instrument of the mind for inventing
a theory that works). So long as you are committed to that theory you
are committed also to its ontology and that constrains what it is you
can "observe." If you think that the theory is out of kilter with what
you "observe," you can invent a new theory. But after you do that, then
it's THAT new theory that tells you what you can observe (interpret
about phenomena according to the new ontology). You never outgrow the
subjectivity of being in a theory to claim virtually all physical
knowledge, because meaning resides either in archephors or in theories,
not in dogma or revelation, in science.
[snip]
> > >
> > > To stop the infinite process of investigations we must resort to
> > objectivity
> > > not to get lost in the maps of the maps or philosophies of the
> > philosophy:
> > > objectivity is (also) the need of a economic use of our mental
> > resources.
> > Objectivity in human knowledge is NOT possible. Sorry.
>
> Indeed, we must just go close enough to get along with the practical
> problems, accepting something as objective is just a way to save
resources:
> in a archers contest wins not the one who get the center of the
target but
> the one who get closer to it.
>
Name one object that physics proves exists. Does hydrogen exist? Do any
atoms exist? The things that we accept as existing incontrovertibly we
don't need science to prove their existence to us. In fact, we couldn't
logically boot strap science's foundation if we did.
The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this: that
intersubjective agreement can be reached among scientists about an
ontology for the "ordinary world." One way to define physics is the
search for what are the useful measuring instruments crafted out of the
ordinary world and why do they behave as they do. Viewed this way,
physics is about as far away from "reality" as you can get.
Measuring instruments do not exist apart from human invention, and they
are invented according to one or more theories of physicality. What
does that imply? That measurements are theory laden. Even a measuring
instrument as "simple" as a ruler would be pointless if we didn't have
our confidence in it based on the theory of rigid bodies in motion.
Patrick
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: beda pietanza: "Re: Models are not necessarily facsimiles of so-called reality"
- Next in thread: beda pietanza: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: beda pietanza: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: xxein_at_bellsouth.net: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
