Hi Ken, Chris, and others,
Although I follow Ken's explanation, after doing some searching
on Norman Swartz, I think that there is a more fundamental and
subtle distinction but it has to do metaphysics, basically, what
kind of knowledge about the physical world is possible. There
is an entry on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy titled
"Laws of Nature" which is different from "Natural Law" (used
in legal and ethical theories) and "Scientific Laws" (e.g.,
laws of physics, chemistry, etc.). The Laws of Nature represents
perspectives on how to explain regularities or uniformities (e.g.,
the speed of light is a constant throughout the universe) in
physical reality. The entry distinguishes between Regularity
Theory (which I think Swartz might be an advocate of) and
Necessitarian Theory (i.e., physical laws have to exist to account
for why we have the structures and processes that we have but
since this position originated with the belief that a Supreme
Being [i.e., God or Flying Spaghetti Monster or Cosmic Muffin, etc.]
instituted these laws, problems arise once we eliminate the
Supreme Being from our explanation and are left with the question
why and how these laws came into existence, more importantly,
do we have the cognitive capabilities to understand the explanation).
Anyways, the entry can be read here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/
Oddly enough, if Swartz is part of the Regularity group, I think
he would have psychological behaviorists as company, depending
upon the degree to which one believes behaviorists embrace
logical positivists (which Chris implies Swartz was against).
Then again, what do I know, right?
-Herr Professor Doktor Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu
------------ Original Message ------------------
On Sun, 14 May 2017 14:02:41 -0700, Kenneth Steele wrote:
Hi Mike and Chris:
Here is an example of a seemingly-obvious empirical fact that shows you
how
tricky such statements can be. Imagine that you (or as we say, "y'all";
as
opposed to "youse") weigh the same object on your bathroom scale in
Toronto and
New York City; and you both agree it weighs 10 kg. You both agree it is
an
empirical fact because you each used different scales and you have
replicated
each other's observation. I take that object and shoot it up to the
International Space Station. It will now become almost "weightless."
The answer to this change in weight does not involve a subterfuge like
evaporation. There is a real change in weight. (No atoms are lost in
the
transfer.) The problem is that most people understand weight as a
measure of
the amount of stuff in the object. Instead, weight is a measure of the
gravitational pull on the object. The location of the object in Toronto
and NYC
is about equal with respect to the center of the earth and so the
gravitational
pull is about equal on objects of equal mass (equal stuff). I moved the
object
more than 200 miles from the center of the earth; the gravitational pull
becomes much weaker; and the weight decreases. That is why people on
Earth
become weightless in space.
On May 14, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Christopher Green wrote:
Mike,
You're missing something because I didn't explain it. Norm Swartz was
an
interesting guy. Very smart - it's not like he was unaware of the
ancient
roots of the conventional accounts of mathematical truth - but very
radical.
Once a devoted follower of Hempel, but he had taken the lessons of
Quine's
"Two Dogmas" very much to heart, I think. To a first approximation (he
wrote
a whole, complex book on the topic that I'm not really competent to
paraphrase), he thought that, with the apparent collapse of the
analytic, all
statements are empirical or they are nonsense (the remaining
two-thirds of
the old Logical Positivist triad). Mathematical statements, then - to
the
degree that they had any meaning anymore - became theories of
empirical
reality. As it turns out, there are empirical exceptions to
mathematical
truths like 1+1=2. For instance, if you add 1 litre of water to 1
litre of
water, you get slightly less than 1 litre of water (due to
evaporation). The
effects are much more profound with gasses, where volume is a function
of
temperature and pressure, in addition to the raw "amount" of gas you
have.
I didn't say I agreed with this position. Indeed, since I don't fully
understand his position - I'm sure he has responses to the obvious
objections
that are forming in your mind even now - I'm not really in a position
to
agree or disagree with it. It is interesting to contemplate,
nevertheless.
The most obvious objection, I think, to my claim that everything is
opinion
would be the counterclaim that some things are fact. It might well be
that
there are some raw facts out there. But we don't have "metaphysical
access"
to those. All we have are our observations and our statements about
our
observations. Those, alas, are opinions. Our observations can easily
be
wrong, and our statements about what our observations imply about "the
world"
can be wronger still.
...............
On May 14, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Mike Palij <m...@nyu.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 08:29:46 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
Everything is opinion. Some opinions are just better backed with
evidence than others. None are so well evinced that they are
certain.
I once had a philosophy of science professor who was such a
thoroughgoing empiricist that he disputed whether 1+1=2.
Dear "Herr Professor Doktor" Chris,
I think I'm missing something, about the connection between
empiricism and "1 + 1 = 2". Was he against logic and mathematics?
The equation "1 + 1 = 2" requires certain assumptions (e.g., base 10
number system) and one could just as easily argue for the truth of
"1 + 1 = 10" if one assumes a base 2 system (binary arithmetic;
see the Wikipedia entry for more background on this and other
systems that go back to ancient Egypt {ca. 2400-1200 BCE]
and China in the form of the text "I Ching" [800 BCE]). As a logic
system, the only issue is whether it is free from contradiction
not whether it corresponds to things in the real word -- a
distinction, I believe is captured by the difference between
validity of deductive arguments and their soundness (see:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ ). If one doesn't believe
in logic, then logical systems make no sense. Is this
what your PoS Prof was arguing or, that the equation "1 + 1 = 2"
is considered true if everyone agrees that it is true,
regardless of the underlying logic, that is, it is a consensus
view? What was Herr Professor Doktor's argument?
Ich habe mich verlaufen. ;-)
(see:
http://www.dummies.com/languages/german/common-conversational-words-and-phrases-in-german/
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=50846
or send a blank email to
leave-50846-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
