Replying to Jerry (with implications for the postings of our Chinese
members) --
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
wrote:
(Pedro: Please Post to FIS)
James Hannam, Stan, Pedro, List:
Thank you for taking the time to express your point of view. For several
years now, I have been studying the origins of molecular biology, seeking a
coherent explanation for the meaning for its predictive powers and the
methods which lead to scientific predictions. I certainly do not speak for
the metaphysics of the physical information theorists, who, perhaps, may be
more persuaded by your style than I.
Your assertion that:
“I sense some scepticism about my contentions that ancient science could
never have developed into what we call modern science. “
is simply illogical and necessarily false.
Why do I confront your logic?
The simple facts are that the basic ideas of Aristotle remain the
foundations of Western science. The developments from Aristotle to the
present day can be traced step-by-step.
By the basic ideas of Aristotle, I mean five specific notions that Aristotle
wrote of:
1. Rules of thought [identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle]
2. Categories [substance, quality, quantity, relation, time, place,
situation, condition, action and passion]
3. Causality [formal, material efficient, telos]
4. Logic of premises (sorites, pathways of statements from antecedents to
consequences, graph theory, theory of categories]
5. hierarchy [individual, species, genera, alone with ostension to greater
levels]
During the intervening 23 Centuries, our notions of all these terms have
changed substantially. Our very notion of language itself, as well as our
notion of symbol systems, especially mathematics and chemistry has greatly
improved our ability to be specific. Nevertheless, modern science developed
directly from these few simple concepts, particularly of the concept of
identity. The scientific terms of Aristotle continue to serve the sciences
well and continue to be discussed routinely in both the theory and in
practice of modern science.
If Western science did not develop from these Aristotelian concepts, what
concepts did modern science develop from?
Your focus on motion, as an example, is, in my opinion, ill-advised for your
thesis. The philosophy of physics continues to churn, century after century,
it remains unsettled today. Personally, I smile a wide grin whenever a
physicist announces once again that the foundations of physics must be
revised. As one of my friends loves to say, physics is the only metaphysics
we (“modern science”) have. The other sciences, intimately associated with
the logic of calculus, thrive on the correspondence between observations and
predictions.
Is it possible, James, that your training has embedded your thinking so
deeply in the logic of language that the historical role of the logic of
calculus in the development of science is submerged in your writings?
Nice statement. I agree with this.
Stan:
Two ideas are at issue:
1. The first is your most recent post on the role of the term, “properties.”
“There ARE NO "properties of things" unmediated by biology and culture.” The
concept of properties is, of course, the bedrock of predicate logic and the
grammar of physics. If you deny the existence of properties in your
ontology, your metaphysics becomes much clearer.
Clarifying more: There can be no 'objective' knowledge of properties
outside the material abilities of the knower. Bridgman was the most honest
physicist! And von Uexküll was the best psychologist. There is no knowledge
outside the knower. All is 'local knowledge' only. Yes, this is
postmodernism. However, even with this viewpoint as a standpoint, one can
proceed to do standard theoretical and philosophical work because, for
example, the universe IS one of our equations! In postmodernism, scientific
theory and philosophy become artistic achievements for their own sake,
expressing humanity's, and more particularly Western Culture's imagination.
The difference, then, is that in the postmodern view, there might be other
perspectives, while in the standard scientific view there is only one true
perspective, which frequently gets locked into repressive ‘bandwagons’ (as
in Darwinian evolutionary biology, or general relativity cosmology).
1. Secondly, the notion of the term, “ostensive””. What is it?
The Latin roots suggests the meaning
“stretch out to view”,
that is, demonstrable. In particular, are you using this term as if it is
unrelated to the concept extension that merely stretches a concept out?
I mean ‘defining by pointing to’. It means communication unmediated by
verbal language.
STAN
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
