Re: exhaustive definition in the life sciences - an oxymoron?

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:21:07 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>"feedbackdroids" <feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1135718286.610592.28950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>> > "feedbackdroids" <feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:1135619201.641437.113390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > > Lester Zick wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > No it means I prefer having an exhaustive definition for something
>> > > > before I try to decide whether and how to scale it.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Rhetorical question - how do you ever have an exhaustive definition
>for
>> > > something that 40 different scientists have 40 different definitions
>> > > for?
>> >
>> > If you believe this, then you do not believe in naturalized
>epistemology,
>> > which pretty much claims that generating those definitions is what you
>do
>> > FIRST, and then you find out what they have in common and what natural
>> > phenomena you can study to find the relations between the definitions
>and
>> > natural phenomena to eventually come to a definition that is correct.
>> >
>> > Odd for someone who agrees with Dennet that philosophy needs to be
>> > naturalized to reject it ...
>>
>>
>> When I don't about your definition of naturalized epistomology, but
>> clearly one can never generate defiinitions FIRST. Instead, FIRST one
>> needs to make a lot of observations and measurements, and then one can
>> form hypotheses, based upon these measurements, and then one might
>> build a theory.
>
>The definitions come FROM differing views of natural phenomena. No one has
>a view of absolutely everything, and you need a base set of things that you
>think fall into the category you want to study before you can do the
>in-depth study to get the comprehensive definition.

I would disagree, Allan, to the extent that "abstract reasoning" or
"not abstract reasoning" is a comprehensive view of absolutely
everything if tautological regressions are exhaustive of truth.

>> And then, once one actually knows something about the real-world, then
>> one might produce a definition. If one knows nothing about the
>> real-world, then it's just a made-up story, not a definition.
>
>And I never asserted that was the case. However, definitions produced by
>more internal than external observations (thinking instead of looking) can
>be useful in the naturalistic project as well. If they are made-up stories,
>they will fall out of the picture. If they present interesting issues, they
>will be retained.
>
>>
>> What the top-down advocates seem to forget is how much background
>> knowledge they ALREADY possess, BEFORE attempting the process
>> indicated.
>
>Except that we don't. We assume it and START FROM IT, and so feel little
>need to mention it. Those 40 definitions come from background knowledge.
>Now we have to find out what in detail all should be included.
>
>
>


~v~~

.