From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 23:51:30 BST
Matt,
> Scott said:
> Why does one look for material explanations? because it is assumed that
that is all there are (see the Rorty definition above).
>
> Matt:
> Tsk, tsk, Scott. Rorty didn't say that all there are are material
explanations. He said, "...a "physicalist" [is] someone who is prepared to
say that every event can be described in micro-structural terms, a
description which mentions only elementary particles, and can be explained
by reference to other events so described." He says, "can be described,"
not "all there are." If I understand you correctly, you don't think this is
a difference that makes a difference, though I still do, but you did say
that you wouldn't make him sound reductionist anymore. And as far as I can
tell you just welched.
Looks like it. I should have been more careful. What if I had said "because
it is assumed that while there can be material explanations, there can be no
valid (or useful, or something) immaterial explanations"? where an
immaterial explanation is one that explains in terms of events that cannot
be described in micro-structural terms. For example, to say "Mozart created
melodies by tuning into the music of the spheres." There can, to be sure, be
explanations that are neither material nor immaterial.
Now let me ask you if you agree with Andy that the pragmatist is not looking
for all-encompassing theories. If so, doesn't the phrase "every event can be
described in micro-structural terms" sound all-encompassing?
- 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 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 23:54:18 BST