Replying to Jerry (with implications for the postings of our Chinese members) --
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: (Pedro: Please Post to FIS) James Hannam, Stan, Pedro, List: Thank you for taking the time to express your point of view. For several years now, I have been studying the origins of molecular biology, seeking a coherent explanation for the meaning for its predictive powers and the methods which lead to scientific predictions. I certainly do not speak for the metaphysics of the physical information theorists, who, perhaps, may be more persuaded by your style than I. Your assertion that: “I sense some scepticism about my contentions that ancient science could never have developed into what we call modern science. “ is simply illogical and necessarily false. Why do I confront your logic? The simple facts are that the basic ideas of Aristotle remain the foundations of Western science. The developments from Aristotle to the present day can be traced step-by-step. By the basic ideas of Aristotle, I mean five specific notions that Aristotle wrote of: 1. Rules of thought [identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle] 2. Categories [substance, quality, quantity, relation, time, place, situation, condition, action and passion] 3. Causality [formal, material efficient, telos] 4. Logic of premises (sorites, pathways of statements from antecedents to consequences, graph theory, theory of categories] 5. hierarchy [individual, species, genera, alone with ostension to greater levels] During the intervening 23 Centuries, our notions of all these terms have changed substantially. Our very notion of language itself, as well as our notion of symbol systems, especially mathematics and chemistry has greatly improved our ability to be specific. Nevertheless, modern science developed directly from these few simple concepts, particularly of the concept of identity. The scientific terms of Aristotle continue to serve the sciences well and continue to be discussed routinely in both the theory and in practice of modern science. If Western science did not develop from these Aristotelian concepts, what concepts did modern science develop from? Your focus on motion, as an example, is, in my opinion, ill-advised for your thesis. The philosophy of physics continues to churn, century after century, it remains unsettled today. Personally, I smile a wide grin whenever a physicist announces once again that the foundations of physics must be revised. As one of my friends loves to say, physics is the only metaphysics we (“modern science”) have. The other sciences, intimately associated with the logic of calculus, thrive on the correspondence between observations and predictions. Is it possible, James, that your training has embedded your thinking so deeply in the logic of language that the historical role of the logic of calculus in the development of science is submerged in your writings? Nice statement. I agree with this. Stan: Two ideas are at issue: 1. The first is your most recent post on the role of the term, “properties.” “There ARE NO "properties of things" unmediated by biology and culture.” The concept of properties is, of course, the bedrock of predicate logic and the grammar of physics. If you deny the existence of properties in your ontology, your metaphysics becomes much clearer. Clarifying more: There can be no 'objective' knowledge of properties outside the material abilities of the knower. Bridgman was the most honest physicist! And von Uexküll was the best psychologist. There is no knowledge outside the knower. All is 'local knowledge' only. Yes, this is postmodernism. However, even with this viewpoint as a standpoint, one can proceed to do standard theoretical and philosophical work because, for example, the universe IS one of our equations! In postmodernism, scientific theory and philosophy become artistic achievements for their own sake, expressing humanity's, and more particularly Western Culture's imagination. The difference, then, is that in the postmodern view, there might be other perspectives, while in the standard scientific view there is only one true perspective, which frequently gets locked into repressive ‘bandwagons’ (as in Darwinian evolutionary biology, or general relativity cosmology). 1. Secondly, the notion of the term, “ostensive””. What is it? The Latin roots suggests the meaning “stretch out to view”, that is, demonstrable. In particular, are you using this term as if it is unrelated to the concept extension that merely stretches a concept out? I mean ‘defining by pointing to’. It means communication unmediated by verbal language. STAN
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
