Steven, I didn't say that materialism is absurd. I said " To my mind the proposition "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects" is absurd." I'm unsure how that is "name calling", but I apologize for giving offense.
You say that you're "mystified as to how simple expressions of opinion... helps" . I take it that you intend to belittle my opinion rather than your own? When, for example, you expressed the opinion that I had misrepresented Poincare's text, based on your authority as having studied the matter -- that was, after all, your opinion. You asked me to provide some quotes to explain my case, and I did, but you didn't acknowledge receipt, so I don't know whether that helped. I did what I could. Allow me to say something about my perspective regarding this terminology, "scientific", "unscientific" and "post-scientific". When I think of what is scientific, I think first of all of empirical experiments or tests, e.g. the famed Michelson-Morley experiment or a properly conducted trial testing the effects of possible new medicines, etc. In contrast, when I think of what is unscientific I think of e.g. an unregulated opinion poll conducted on a web site, or etc. A credible general theory in the hard sciences is ultimately based on such particulars (I believe, and so does Poincare) and couldn't exist without them. I have no idea what "post-scientific" can mean. Consider Anselm's argument purporting to prove the existence of God. Anselm's argument is not scientific, certainly not in a sense relating to empirical science, but I'd hesitate to call it "unscientific" because it never did purport to be so, or even to be related to science except in the sense that demonstrative logic is used. My most natural use of the term "unscientific" would be to describe "bad science", meaning that not much attention was paid to the norms of science, or to describe unfounded speculative theory regarding matters which should rather be treated more carefully, with attention put to showing an empirical foundation. The assertion "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important respects" doesn't seem to fit in either case. It isn't "bad science", there's no experiment, no physical test here. But it isn't idle speculative theory, either, since it doesn't offer a theory. Can it be "true"? But every time something new is learned about the universe, every time a new and credible theory is put forward to explain the known facts, it could be replied that such isn't "important", or is a "mere development", or some similar reply. How would we judge these? I repeat, to my mind the assertion is absurd, and it plays no part whatsoever in how I understand the doctrine of "materialism". Drake > From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith > > I am as mystified as Drake concerning the notion of "post-science" and what > this might imply but then I am also mystified as to how simple expressions of > opinion and name calling (materialism is "absurd") helps. > > All I said was that the view of late 20th Century materialism is the view that > "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all important > respects." I then observed, as a positivist, that this is not a scientific view. > ..... > > On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:05 PM, vony wrote: > > Why is "post-scientific" a better characterization than "unscientific" of the > sentence "our understanding of the physical world is complete in all > important respects." ? To my mind the proposition "our understanding of > the physical world is complete in all important respects" is absurd, Not just > "unscientific" but counter-scientific. It doesn't seem to be consistent to any > idea I have of "religion", either. > > Drake > > > > From: Terry Bristol.... > > 'Post-scientific' is a better characterization than unscientific - methinks. > > What Peirce et al are after is a More General Theory that can account for > the inherently limited success of various material or mechanical theories as > special cases. > > . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
