Re: Universality as warrant for relative truth value

Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

For the biologist, "all science to date" includes physics. You
objected when I allowed that biologists assumed physics. But now you
are making that part of your argument.

We are talking at cross purposes. I don't believe biologists work from
the theories or axioms specific to physics, but only the biological
level is constrained by the physical.

Physics includes basic measurement, such as the measuring of length.
And biologists use that.

My statement only meant that the biologist starts, not with a tabula
rasa, but with a highly developed array of theories which he accepts as
true, as given, so that he can present his investigation within some
kind of framework.

But those theories did not pop into existence out of nowhere.
Biology wasn't always as heavily based on theory as it is now.

I have been using the term "empirical principle". An axiom is not
empirical.

Empirical means based on observation. An axiom is a proposition whose
truth is presumed. A principle is a rule, standard or basic truth.

Classic measurement of length used a measuring rod (or yardstick).
For a long time, this was based on a standard platinum rod kept
in Paris. Why are such specifications of how to measure length
not a principle? And what isn't empirical about them?

You seem to have missed the point. By treating something as abstract,
we are separating it from reality. That is to say, for the purposes
of discussion, we are ignoring connections with reality. Whether it
originated in reality is not the issue. It's a question of how we use
it, not a question of how it originated.

Again, you are playing with words by giving them unconventional
meanings.

I'm using "abstract" about the way it is used in mathematics,
and mathematicians are probably the most important users of the term.

Take the principles of measurement using that measuring rod, and
abstract them away from reality, and you finish up with Euclidean
geometry.

Of course reality is not intelligible. Science, or even ordinary
human learning, are there to make it intelligible. But that
intelligibility is not inherent in reality, it is something that we
must provide.

You are saying that intelligibility is not a property of things. Well,
who would suggest otherwise?

When you use terms in ways that are not clear, I question them as a
way to get clarification.

When we say "reality is intelligible", we
are not assigning a property to things, but refering to a relation
between us and the object of investigation.

But you seem to be assuming that there is such a relation. My point
is that we start without such a relation, and it takes inventiveness
to come up with a suitable relation.

You appear to have
difficulty communicating your points.

I have already conceded that in an earlier message.

You adopt a perspective that is admittedly unconventional among
scientists. So what warrant do you offer that might give it any
significance, makes it attracive to anyone but yourself?

My experience is that others don't find it attractive. I guess they
should stick to Cartesian dualism, since that is the best account they
are likely to find that is consistent with the conventional view.

You are mixing two different issues. One is the critique that most
people prefer to stick with convention, and so represening to them a
novel position becomes a challenge.

And I had thought I was giving an answer (an indirect one, I'll
admit) to your question "So what warrant do you offer that might
give it any significance, makes it attracive to anyone but yourself?"

Let me give a little advice. When communications fail, always assume
that it is part your own fault, and make self-rectification your first
priority. This applies to marriage, too.

I don't know what your point is there. I have been trying several
different ways to explain my point. It seems to me that I am
making many attempts at correcting the communication problem.
I don't think I have tried to blame anyone else.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... considering a broader "reality" than this. ... That said, Physics ... what is it that caused a clock to have lost ... measurement itself - "physicality" is demonstrated by changes in the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... considering a broader "reality" than this. ... That said, Physics ... what is it that caused a clock to have lost ... measurement itself - "physicality" is demonstrated by changes in the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... considering a broader "reality" than this. ... That said, Physics ... what is it that caused a clock to have lost ... measurement itself - "physicality" is demonstrated by changes in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A basic principle of physics modeling vs reality
    ... The electron magnetic moment has been guessed ... It is a measurement Patrick. ... do our theories reflect a deeper reality that actually determine how ... such things is not really required to do physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hooray: the Church of Scotland shows the way
    ... the measurement processes. ... phenomena - the classical mechanics of Newton for particles and the wave ... Unlike the other great pillar of modern physics, General Relativity, quantum ... needed is an understanding that includes the human observer as part of the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading