From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 19:57:40 BST
Mark,
msh says:
[snip]
So.... I guess I'd say I "prefer" the preference interpretation at
the inorganic level because it allows a more symmetrical metaphysics
overall. Better style, you know. Higher quality.
Scott:
I can accept that -- that is more or less why I prefer the preference
interpretation as well. But that is not an empirical justification, and that
is all I am trying to point out. The MOQ claims to be empirical, but it
isn't, no more than any other metaphysics. It too depends on non-empirical
moves.
msh says:
Again, I see no point other than symmetry of thought, just another
preference. Empiricism is meaningless without sentient beings. If
your complaint is that empiricism has no meaning at the inorganic
level, except insofar as it interacts with living beings, then I
agree with you.
Scott:
No, my complaint is that the way MOQ and its defenders stretch the use of
the word 'empirical' to cover the whole metaphysics is, (a) incoherent, and
(b) a debasing of the word 'empirical'. It is a good concept to distinguish
science from pseudo-science, but a bad concept to apply to metaphysics.
scott said:
Both are saying something about what is "really going on" at the
subatomic level, but both have no way of showing it. To be able to
show it, I would think, is what we mean when we say our claim is
empirical.
msh:
We've gone full circle, I think. At the level of the elements, the
preference interpretaion is a descriptive choice, not an empirical
fact.
Scott:
That's all I wanted to bring out with this example.
Scott said:
I'm not arguing for or against the statement (in fact, I think I
agree with it, given the qualification). I'm just asking what makes
the statement empirical.
msh says:
I'm not sure what statement you mean. The more
dynamic is better than the less dynamic? This statement isn't part
of the MOQ, as far as I know. This is just another way of saying
that change is always good, which is obviously false. I think that
DQ-inspired change away from established patterns is always good.
And this, I think, is empirically verifiable, right down to the
amoeba moving away from the drop of acid.
Scott:
The statement was: "all else being equal, the more dynamic is better than
the less dynamic." It is the basis for saying that intellectual morality
trumps social morality, etc., so it is definitely part of the MOQ, its
linchpin, in fact. That is, the higher levels are higher because they offer
more dynamic freedom. But how is it empirical? (Your example of the amoeba
is fulfilling an established pattern, not any evidence of changing one.)
Yes, we all experience value, and many of us see greater value in finding
new patterns than in sticking with old ones, but isn't this a statement of
preferences, and not of empirical fact? After all, shouldn't one be
suspicious when those who enjoy intellectual activities (such as
philosophizing) claim that intellectual morality takes precedence?
Now I do think that intellectual morality takes precedence, but I would not
claim that it does because the empirical facts show that it does. In fact,
the MOQ's ultimate justification for this, as I understand it, is an appeal
to mysticism (to establish the reality of DQ). Of course, it tries to make
out that this is an empirical move, but it isn't. It depends on an a priori
selecting out of certain mystical strains and ignoring others.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 20:09:29 BST