Dear Howard, lists - Den 10/11/2014 kl. 03.31 skrev Howard Pattee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
HP: I agree. I define epistemology broadly as the study of the relation between models (images, information, etc.) inside the organism and whatever is outside the organism (reality, existence, etc.). In my experience, this definition covers far too much territory to expect just one type of epistemic relation. That is, the organism's acquisition of information (detection, observation, measurement, etc.) will require a kind of complexity hierarchy. A cell detecting chemicals or light, will suggest a different epistemic interpretation than will a physicist detecting fermions or photons with complex instruments. It is certainly correct there are many epistemic relations. And not all of them are between "models inside the organism" and "whatever is outside the organism". Most scientifc knowledge is not inside organisms but are deposited in papers, diagrams, books, scientific infrastructure, experimental and conceptual practices. This is the precondition for science as a collective, evolving project over generations. I would say that the amount of epistemic interpretation you choose to add to either of these events, beyond the actual acquisition of information, is largely arbitrary, but will be of benefit, as you say, "if new facts can be understood harmoniously with the original impression from another modality" (or hierarchical level). I find that philosophers have a narrower view of epistemology<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/> . It is mostly about justification of belief, and mostly about humans thinking about language-dependent ideas. Some philosophers consider the two extremes of realism and nominalism as ontological issues, but physicists seldom mention ontologies, considering them as pure metaphysics too far outside the domain of science. Howard often refers to what "physicists" mean about this and that. This is highly relevant as concerns physics but maybe less so as concerns epistemology and ontology. In my experience there are different views about the relevance and character of these issues among physicists. Many physicists seem concerned with which things must exist if their models are true - and ontology is nothing more than that. But even if physicists did unanimously agree, we should not expect a vote among phycisists (nor any other select group) to be able to settle these issues. Best F
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
