Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 19:21:49 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Two theories of truth"

    Hello David,

    David said:
    So Matt, what are scientists doing when they do experiments and falsify their theories?

    Matt:
    In the vocabulary I was using? They are causing themselves to have beliefs over and over again in the attempt to be able say something which will allow them to predict when they will be caused to have that belief again. In another vocabulary, they are going back and forth from theory to praxis and praxis to theory. In still another vocabulary, they are muddling through as they triangulate themselves with the experiment's data, the scientific community, and their own hypothesis.

    David said:
    Yeah, keeping guard over ontology, that's what pragmatism does, it works for me, until I start thinking about the nature of this capacity to keep the conversation going, what sort of cosmos this the is, and taht an empty ontological box is a great wonder of ontology!

    Matt:
    Uh, well....

    I guess what pragmatism hopes to achieve is that we still our inclination to think about "the nature of this capacity to keep the conversation going" because we don't think that particular conversation is ever going to lead anywhere with any useful results.

    Matt

    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 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 19:30:04 GMT