From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 17:45:54 GMT
Hi Matt
Matt: Understand that the experiment is open to different results? I don't
get it, I don't see how that's a problem.
DM: Well isn't an experiment asking a question? What are the implications of
this? Who are you asking to answer? What language do you expect the answer
to be in? Clearly the question is open to alternative answers? What is the
implication of this questioning/openness to hearing an answer for us human
beings? Do we ask nature questions? Sure we invent the language but do we
invite nature to answer? Nature may cause our beliefs consequently but we
constructed the language and we then have to 'interpret' nature's answer,
often very difficult to do, as we have no access or belief in nature having
her own language, but still we attempt a conversation, nature answers like
an oracle, like someone using a language we can never understand, but we
have to translate it, otherwise there would be no science only philosophy, I
do not accept that the perfectly good distinctions between science and
philosophy in terms of language-games is the only one, science engages
nature more directly and systematically in conversation, but without
claiming to discover nature's own language, this is critical realism.
Matt: 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.
DM: Yes, there is the language/conceptual framework we set up for the
experiment, but we still do the experiment, we
listen to nature's babble and give it a linguistic interpretation -otherwise
it could have no meaning, it has to be placed into our language-game but is
still therefore a linguistic participant, a very special sort of
conversation.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:31 AM
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 - 17:49:11 GMT