I am as confused as many others are by this "parable." My own reading of it is that our own actions (firing the canon) serve to create/construct/configure the very "nature" (the clock at the clock shop) that we are looking at. And, thus, in essence we see our own "reflection" rather than an independent nature.
Of course, parables do not demonstrate their own "truth" (or perhaps "aptness" would be a better term since these are essentially metaphors we are working with here rather than literal claims). They only draw our attention to a possible parallel, and then leave it to us to decide whether the parallel is telling or superficial. Although there are well-known subatommic phenomena in which certain acts of observation seem to determine certain classes of outcome, there is no reason to believe that this problem "scales up" in any direct or obvious way. And, of course, at the psychological and social level, there is sometimes the problem of the act of observation changing the the behavior being observed (noted from Hawthorne to Hacking) but, again, the matter isn't so simple as our actions simple creating, de novo, the behavior we observe. So for me, this one is superficial. Just my $.02. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
