ccf@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck F.) (02/15/84)
It is refreshing to see philosophy raised to a professional
level for a change. Certainly only a trained philosopher
could notice that Big Bang relates "neither to miracles
nor to creation, but rather a singularity in the retrospective
history of the universe," even if singularities are found
only in theories and not universes, and even if the concept
of history rather intimately involves the concept of creation
(as in, e.g., "judgement of history"). It is forceful thinking
like this that academic training in philosophy is meant to
produce, and we are all instructed by it.
For, as Mr. Rosenberg (who hasn't "the vaguest idea what's
supposed to be meant by 'miracle'") himself says, the
virtue of theory is not its "predictive utility," which
might be of some use, but its "explanatory force"
("a complicated business"), by which we are instructed.
Now I must confess something, Explanatory force is absolutely
my favorite kind of force. In fact, I have taken to measuring
explanatory forces, empirically as it were, so as to judge
the virtue of empirical theories; for that, we are instructed,
is their virtue. I am moved by explanatory forces, in ways
that can be predicted, but not for any utility, to be sure.
Indeed, it is its explanatory force that no doubt drove
Mr. Rosenberg, a trained philosopher, to use the metaphor
"force" in explaining the force of explanatory theories;
he used it because of its utility in explaining the force
of explanatory theories, but not, to be sure, for its utility,
except insofar as its utility refers to its force. Is this clear?
Now, I don't mind any of this. In face, I find it instructive.
The trouble is (and this might be a reason to reject a theory
even though Mr. Rosenberg instructs us that theories are only
rejected in favor of more forceful theories) that once
the theory of the force of theories is shown to be circular,
it loses, well, a lot of its force, if I may use this term here.
Not that Mr. Rosenberg has to reject it. Indeed, if he is
moved by the idea of explanatory force, he may find his way
to understanding the word "miracle," of which he claims not
to have the vaguest idea, or even the idea, or Idea, that the
universe itself was created by "explanatory force," the
force, then, of creative explanation, or the creative Word,
which oddly resembles an idea we had all supposed he was rejecting
when he called it "ill-formed."
Virtuously,
*<--- chuck --->*
cbosgd!ccf
BTL Columbuska@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/15/84)
Congratulations on your flame, Chuck. As nearly as I could tell,
it was completely devoid of content.
Kenneth ("I thought this was net.philosophy") Almquist