On 02/29/2016 03:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
[NST==>Glen. I started to write a long cranky note, claiming to disagree with this, but then I realized that I didn’t understand it. Unless, you are arguing … is this it? … that we can use a scientific abstraction to interpret an observation which we could not use to construct a scientific abstraction. <==nst] I don’t think that is what John had in mind, but we will have to see. I
Not sure what happened with your "<==nst]" tag, there. Yes, that is kindasorta what I meant, except tossing your phrase "scientific abstraction". Someone who has been brainwa... had exposure to the science behind whatever processes that cause blood pressure increases, "tense" and "frustrated" facial expressions, etc. can process these particular one-off observations as members of a _class_. That class (explicitly or implicitly established) is what you're calling scientific. Hence, this particular observation has scientific meaning because it either fits into that class or it does not.
[NST==>Well we would need experimental or observational “control”, right? That’s how one observation becomes a sibling to another. <==nst]
Maybe. In general, I'd agree that the conditions would have to be well instrumented in order to determine whether it was a member of a unique class or not. However, even with inadequate controls, you might be able to say that it falls close to _several_ classes. This is poignant when it seems close to those classes, but doesn't quite fit. And in that sense, it may well be the kernel that allows or triggers[*] you to form a testable hypothesis. I think your definition of scientifically meaningful would be bizarre if you didn't include hypothesis formation. If you're at all engaged in trying to formulate testable hypotheses, it seems reasonable to say your actions/thoughts are scientifically meaningful. So even if the system weren't instrumented at all, one could still make the argument that it might be scientifically meaningful. [*] "An abductive trigger is not just an occurrence of which an agent is conscious. It is an occurrence of a type that rises to a second grade of statistical abnormality. It is an event whose occurrence is not only noticed and attended to by the agent; its occurrence is, as we said above, uncharacteristic in some sense." -- Woods & Gabbay, "The Reach of Abduction" -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
