Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:00:52 -0500

Neil W Rickert said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> writes:
> >Neil W Rickert said:
>
> >Okay so the rules didn't exist until we discovered them, but things
> >behaved in accordance with the rules before that. The behavior of the
> >universe didn't change when we "invented" the rules.
>
> That's my position. Strictly speaking, the behavior of people in
> using these rules is part of the behavior of the universe, so there
> is some changed behavior. But that's really a side issue.
>
> > So, what makes the
> >universe behave as it does, before and after that "invention"?
>
> We may never know. For every scientific advance raises new
> questions. Kant said that we could not know the world in itself.
It's called natural law. Would that it were a nail.........
>
> >This distinction is so elementary, I cannot undertsand how you and Bob
> >cannot just get it. There is definitely a bad side effect of dealing
> >with symbolic statements exclusively for years on end: that's all you
> >think there are - statements. You act like the underlying meaning of
> >statements is defined in terms of their grammar.
>
> You have that backwards. You are the one who is so enamored of
> symbolic statements (those that are said to express laws of nature),
> that you want to raise those statements to metaphysical status.
Oy. The statements are not what I elevate to metaphysical status. I ahev
made that clear repeatedly.
>
> >We have hit this subject where logical statements are based on
> >assertions that aren't derived logically, and where the symbolic
> >mathematical system is based on an operation (successor) whose
> >definition is not symbolically mathematical. Your statements about the
> >world have to be ultimately based on something other than statements.
>
> My statements are based in scientific practice. And I am referring
> particularly to practice in dealing with the world (as distinct from
> theorizing).
>
> 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>This distinction is so elementary, I cannot undertsand how you and Bob ... There is definitely a bad side effect of dealing ... >>We have hit this subject where logical statements are based on ... > My statements are based in scientific practice. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>This distinction is so elementary, I cannot undertsand how you and Bob ... There is definitely a bad side effect of dealing ... >>We have hit this subject where logical statements are based on ... > My statements are based in scientific practice. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Business Memoir - the ``whom question
    ... distinction, which on the face of it is absurd. ... 'You're dealing with *who*?!' ... I don't consider rules, or the history of the language, when I speak; I use the usage I have learned (sometimes a matter of relearning something in school). ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Business Memoir - the ``whom question
    ... distinction, which on the face of it is absurd. ... in a real fact about the language (or for some a slightly ... 'You're dealing with *who*?!' ... when you speak. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast