Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 22:49:07 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?"

    David,

    David said:
    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 s

    ystematically in conversation, but without claiming to discover nature's own language, this is critical realism.

    Matt:
    The first description I wrote of what a scientist does I think still works: "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." You said then that that doesn't sound anything at all like an experiment, but I have no idea why not. To me it sounds just as strange as saying that we are engaging in a conversation with nature. Following my description of Davidson and Sellars, it makes perfect sense. We don't ask nature a question, we ask ourselves a question. Nature doesn't answer, either. It simply generates a belief in us, which then answers the question.

    I'm not sure why critical realism stops short of claiming to discover nature's own language (afterall, we are supposedly in conversation with nature and our translations are getting closer and closer, as translations tend to do), but if for whatever reason it doesn't, then I don't see a difference that makes a difference between critical realism's dialogue with nature and Davidson's idea of triangulation.

    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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 22:49:46 GMT