esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (10/11/84)
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) > When the larger thing being described (the mind/brain) is composed of the > smaller (chemicals), it is appropriate to delve to the maximum level of > depth to find what is "really" going on. It is not correct to imply or insinuate that the low-level activities are somehow "more real" than the high-level activities. Both are equally real. The conductive heat transfer from my legs to the metal rim of my chair is no less "real" an event that the vibrations of the molecules involved. > The words "only", "just", and "merely" are appropriate when compared to > other grander (and less tenable) notions that proclaim the existence of > something "more". Under *no* circumstances have such notions been shown to be less tenable merely by showing that certain scientific questions can be answered with- out them. Many if not most scientific concepts are similarly disposable (at least in theory), but we retain them because they are still tenable and are very useful (example: pressure). While the use of the word "only" is DENOTATIVELY accurate IF what is meant is, "and there is nothing in addition that does not simply redescribe the same phenomena," the conno- tation of disparagement is lurking. Therefore, the word should ALWAYS be avoided so as not to mislead readers (unless one MEANS to disparage!). --Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.