Eubulides wrote: >> No; I'm just against metaphors that intimate nomological structure as immanent in histories.<<
Whew! did you swallow a thesaurus? are you saying that you are against metaphors that claim to be exactly descriptive? But what's wrong with even that false precision if the user realizes that there's a difference between the metaphor (theory, simile, etc.) and the object it is being used to describe? Because different people use the same words to mean widely different things, I looked up the word "nomological." According to the web search, one definition is "Relating to or denoting certain principles, such as laws of nature, that are neither logically necessary nor theoretically explicable, but are simply taken as true" (or axiomatic). That makes sense to me, so I'll arbitrarily rule out other definitions. In Newtonian physics, the law of gravity fits this description. Newton had no explanation of gravity, as I understand his work. It was "neither logically necessary nor theoretically explicable" but it seems to be reasonable to take the existence of gravity (and its role in Newton's equations) as true until proven otherwise. To actually explain gravity and its role, we need another theory (e.g., Einstein's), but that theory also has elements (axioms) which are neither logically necessary nor theoretically explicable. The key is to be very clear about what's axiomatic (or nomological) and what isn't. In the social "sciences," obviously, there's are no principles that are as solid as that of gravity. After all, this is human beings we're talking about! But is there anything wrong with positing some basic principles or axioms that aren't logically necessary or theoretically explicable and then using them to develop a theory? the question is then: does the theory make as much sense (in terms of its internal logic) as competing theories and does it fit perceived empirical reality as well as they do? is it a better guide for practice? >> That is to say, we'd be better off letting go of such metaphors as a starting place to 'find' something that isn't there. << I never advocated using metaphors (similes, etc.) as starting places for finding anything; in fact, I don't know of anyone who has done that. (By the way, what exactly is it that "isn't there"?) Rather, they are mental tools that sometimes allow us to get some understanding of the empirical world. The "starting place" is the (perceived) empirical world. If one uses preexisting metaphors as a "starting place," that seems to define religious-type thinking or dogma. >> Let's 'project' or, 'perform' more interesting metaphors for understanding our current and future circumstances. << Huh? How can one "perform" a metaphor? or "project" one? how does one decide which metaphors are more interesting? more interesting to whom? what standards define how interesting a metaphor is? >> I doubt few on the list would find Mirowski's "markets as automata" metaphor compelling as a way to rethink what people do in/with markets; would Mirowski then blithely rejoin that "well you just think metaphors are bad things"?<< There's a difference between a _specific_ metaphor (markets as automata) and metaphors in general. As noted, there are (almost always) competing theories, especially in the social "sciences." The question is which ones make most sense empirically and logically. That is, to reject the idea that markets are (like) automata poses the question: what's a better theory of how markets work? or do we just give up and say that we're never going to understand how markets work? or do we say "yeah, I know that markets aren't _really_ automata, but that's the best theory we've got"? >> Which empiricists are you talking about, Van Fraasen? Who is against using metaphor?<< there are some naïve social scientists who embrace a kind of empiricism, but they don't have Big Names, so no-one's ever heard of them. Actually, one of them spoke at an ASSA convention a few years ago. If you wish, I'll get his name for you. Of course, he isn't a true empiricist, because that's impossible. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
