Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: > > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or > tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a > > closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always > have > > at least one fixed point that is unexplainable". > > This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all > foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, > without explanation, usually by direct perception or by > introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly > intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. "...such things as > fundamentality, generality and beauty." > > Brent Meeker > > > But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation?
Because, as you pointed out, it works. When knowledge is tested against perception and intersubjective agreement on that perception (to rule out hallucinations) it seems to be reliable. When it's based on mystic revelation, it's not. I was referring to Tom's statement you quoted when I said it was somewhat beside the point. > It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making > predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than > prayer), but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the > interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals > will not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that > it is metaphysics rather than science. Some physics journals and proceeding of symposia do publish papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This kind of metaphysics (literally "about physics") is useful in guiding the development of new theories. When Einstein developed general relativity he assumed some "meta-" rules, e.g. no derivatives higher than second. Since there's a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity at the ontological level, the resolution is likely to require something that is "meta-" relative to the current theories. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
