rmpinchback@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) (04/05/88)
In article <1149@3comvax.3Com.Com> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: >I'm quite fond of the case of Mercury's rotation, because I believe it's >perhaps the clearest example in recent scientific history of a completely >unexpected discovery, even by the discoverers. There's a current among >some of the more Idealistically inclined, which holds that science never >"discovers" anything -- instead it *creates* what it "discovers." E.g., >atoms didn't exist until scientists started believing, and looking, for >them -- whereupon they popped into "existence" via real wishful thinking. > This is an over-simplification of a hotly-debated argument on some of the foundational issues in the philosophy of science. There is a distinction between empirical notions and theoretical terms. An atom is a theoretical term. It does, however, have an empirical enterpretation by linking it to the observable results of experiments from which we can infer the existance of the physical thing that we intend to model by our concept "atom". If you hold with a subjectivist opinion of science (cf. Thomas Kuhn), then in a sense the atom is there because you are looking for it. From an objective standpoint (cf. Israel Sheffler), the physical thing is there, though our model of it (our concept "atom") will be very fluid and changeable as our level of knowledge increases. Several distinctions are implicit in the debate. There is the difference between the product, and process of science. The difference between the existent (the actual, real thing), and what we know about it. There is also the difference between connotational and denotational semantics of scientific terms and concepts. Funny thing is that the "unexpectedness" of some discoveries is itself is a strong argument for the objective stance. If you create what you see, why would you ever see something you didn't expect to see? Perhaps the best resolution to the debate comes from the viewpoint of Hume when he commented on speculative philosophy: "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, `Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. `Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existance?' No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." Modern interpretation? Don't bug me with meaningless philosophical crud. Reid M. Pinchback -----------------
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/06/88)
In article <6212@watdragon.waterloo.edu> rmpinchback@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes: } .... Funny thing is }that the "unexpectedness" of some discoveries is itself is a strong argument }for the objective stance. If you create what you see, why would you ever }see something you didn't expect to see? I create the entirety of the programs I write, all out of conscious thought. Yet the output of these programs is often something I didn't expect to see.
verma@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) (04/07/88)
In article <6212@watdragon.waterloo.edu> rmpinchback@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes: > .... Funny thing is >that the "unexpectedness" of some discoveries is itself is a strong argument >for the objective stance. If you create what you see, why would you ever >see something you didn't expect to see? Just because you create something does not mean that you can predict it outcome, even if you create the rules that it must follow to arrive at that outcome. Further, just because some part of your mind creats an event, there is no reason to believe that any other part of your mind can or will access that information and expect it to have been created. ---TS