Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues
>Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much >more doubtful. Most of >us will have given up on this “realistic” position. This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we have at hands. >One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the >possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration). Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺ Best, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04 To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous "Prima la musica, dopo le parole", I say "first reality, then the signs". Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”! In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus, one was interested in “natural philosophy” and “natural law” as manifestations. However, this has eroded. Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much more doubtful. Most of us will have given up on this “realistic” position. One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration). It seems important to me to distinguish between the order in which things are historically generated (although we have no access to this process than by reconstructing this order) and the evolutionary order of control. The latter system emerges from the former: order is constructed bottom-up, but control is increasingly top-down. The control arrow feeds back on the historical arrow and from this perspective the signs come first. This may not have been included in Pierce’s writings. ☺ With best wishes, Loet
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
