On Mar 12, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
> ...
>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith
>> <ste...@semeiosis.org> wrote:
>>
>> ... I agree with that there is "no knowledge outside the knower."
>>
>> However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly
>> uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely.
>
> Well, if by 'uniformity' you mean that the results of our activities have
> some predictability, I would say that what this actually refers to is that
> our conceptual tools (laws, expectations, etc.) are usually successful in
> aiding our projects. That is a great intellectual achievement. But as to a
> supposed actual uniformity (?statistical) of the universe, that is a product
> of, and exists in, our discourses.
>
No, this is not what I am trying to convey.
My assertion is an existential one not an epistemological one. The universe,
independent of any conception, is profoundly uniform and it is this uniformity
that is the basis of perceived universals. Our conceptions can have no
intrinsic uniformity unless they are founded upon this profound feature of the
world.
Nor am I referring to statistical uniformity. Again, I make an existential
statement, not an epistemological one. I refer only to uniformity that
underlies the laws and principles of our observations; it is the scientific
assertion that the determinant features of the world, apprehended as laws and
principles, are everywhere the same.
> Then, to Steven again:
>
>
>> I still do not understand the appeal to postmodernism. There does not seem
>> to me to be anything postmodern about "no knowledge outside the knower."
>> Indeed, it is a modern idea developed by logicians of the modern era.
> I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists,
> requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured
> by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von Uexküll's
> 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the postmodern view is
> anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal understanding, which
> modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science, the famous
> incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics might have
> engendered a kind of postmodernism. Instead, it has sent many brilliant
> minds upon the evidently thankless task of trying to ‘square the circle’!
>
I doubt your view warrants the term "postmodernism" for the reasons I have
already stated.
Your claim that "modern science implicitly pretends to" a "supposedly universal
understanding" misses the point made in the above comments. If there is an
unspoken dependence then this is it.
A view that "eschews any supposed universal understanding," simply cannot be
scientific. It is the view of disenchanted sociologists, philosophers or
diplomats, perhaps.
The profound existential uniformity that I refer to is the necessary basis of
scientific knowledge, without it all bets are off. It is certainly a
conjecture, both verifiable and fallible, but without it there can be no
science.
As to the famous incongruity between GR and QM, each focus upon distinct
aspects of nature. Our failure, so far, to have a unified view of these evident
aspects of the world is simply an indicator that there is work to do. If it has
engendered anything it is a literal mindedness that has closed minds to the
revisions necessary and thus we have stalled. "To the man with a hammer,
everything is a nail." I take it to be a warning that we must be more rigorous,
not less.
Incidentally, I elaborate on my earlier "Science Abandons Absolute Truth"
posting on my blog:
http://stevenzenith.info/science-abandons-absolute-truth
With respect,
Steven
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
