On Aug 27, 6:45 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I don't know whether you're hair splitting or speaking loosely, but the above 
> is off the point in a couple of ways.  In the first place empirical science 
> is inductive not deductive; so there is a trivial sense in which you can't 
> deduce any empirical fact, such as someone's aesthetic preferences.  More 
> broadly you can deduce aesthetic preferences, though of course that takes a 
> theory.  A theory is non-physical, but it isn't necessarily an assumption - 
> it may be very well supported inductively.  In fact I can give and easy 
> example of such deduction and I don't even need to directly observe your 
> brain.  I predict that you prefer the appearance of nude young women to that 
> of nude young men.
>
> Brent Meeker

Well yes, science is both deductive and inductive (with the deductive
thought of as a special case of the inductive).  Yes, you can infer
aesthetic preferences from a theory, which doesn't have to be an
assumptuion.  You are off-topic though.  The discussion was a debate
over whether non-physical aspects (for instance aesthtics preferences)
are entirely explainable in terms of physical aspects (ie particles,
forces and fields).  I've argued convincing that they aren't, since
any level of non-physical description has to slip in non-physical
components -ie subjective experiences about nude young woman ;)


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to