From: Nathan Pila (pila@sympatico.ca)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 02:34:04 GMT
I studied Godel's theorem and what it says is that under any system there
can be statements which are neither true nor false and are therefore
undecideable. Kurt Godel's theorem applies to mathematics but it has been
hijacked into other areas of human endeavour.
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?
> David,
>
> David said:
> OK how do we understand that the experiment is open to different results?
How is the possibility set up? What is the status of the results within the
conceptual framework? Are they speech acts? Is there an agent involved? Or
if you want to refer to causality, how do we get from causes to linguistic
results? I think there is a big clue in the notion that we interpret the
results. Any ideas?
>
> Matt:
> I'm not sure I understand all of your questions.
>
> Understand that the experiment is open to different results? I don't get
it, I don't see how that's a problem.
>
> How is the possibility set up? Of different results? I don't get this,
either. Anamolies pop up in our theories. That's what you might call
"empirical". Didn't Godel write something about theories either being
all-encompassing, but irrelevant or relevant, but partial? Something like
that?
>
> Status of the results within the conceptual framework. Are they speech
acts? Yeah, or they're written. An agent? Sure, the scientist.
>
> Causes to linguistic results? This, I think I understand. The answer to
this is, first, neopragmatists follow Wilfrid Sellars in saying that "all
awareness is a linguistic affair." Second, we follow Davidson in making a
distinction between causes and reasons (which can also be causes). The
experiment, like all things we percieve with our five senses, _causes_ us to
have a belief. The belief is linguistic. We see something, a belief is
generated. There's no getting to one to the other that needs to be
explicated as far as the pragmatist is concerned. This fits with
"interpreting results" because the belief that is generated by an experiment
is going to depend on the beliefs that are already floating around in our
web of beliefs.
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 02:41:59 GMT