From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 19:26:01 GMT
Matt
By the way when I say critical realism I am talking
about new critical realism not the old Amercian school
of critical realism, here's a summary:
http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/gmac_intro.html
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?
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 19:33:09 GMT