From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 21:05:19 GMT
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
DM: I can't see any scientists thinking that your description is any use to
them or anything like what they do. I thought scientists created theories
and tested them experimentally. Do you object to this description?
Experiments do not have a causal effect on scientists, the data print out
has to be turned into information via interpretation, the experimental
results have a linguistic significance not a causal effect. Science, of
course, has to take assumptions/theory to the data to make sense of it.
Maybe you can explain what you are saying another way, your attempt above
makes no sense to me. Yes, I know what I am saying sounds strange, I am
hoping you will understand how what I am saying differs from pragmatism and
to get you to think about it as a possibility or explain what you do not
like about it. My proposal is that if data has a role in a language game
then we are treating it (rightly or wrongly) as if someone is talking to us.
I am also suggesting that this is odd because I am happy to accept that
there is no way of discovering nature's own language. My idea of a
conversation with a nature that does not speak our language is a way of
implying realism but not correspondence theory, and that this is a critical
realist position because the fact that we have to translate a nature into a
foreign and human language is problematic and necessarily provisional. If we
ask ourselves the question why do we do experiments? What is an experimental
result. Critical realism is increasingly seen as the sophisticated option
for science theorists and thinking scientists. Where do you stand on
realism, are you anti-realist or trying to get past this distinction? Tel me
some more about triangulation. Critical realism=no nature language always
provisional, hence distinction from realism's hope of finding the one right
language. Actual interpretation never gets simply closure, there is always a
different and plausible interpretation, for some of course interpretation is
impossible. I am with certain theorists that think anti-realism goes too far
because it makes it hard to explain the actual progress science makes often
in very odd ways.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?
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 Nov 20 2003 - 21:08:46 GMT