Have been reading the John Worral article... at first blush.....I am quite
disappointed....if you know the fellow....try to get him to consider my
point between the "epistemological" distinction of "Subjective" as opposed
to "Objective" as they (terms) pertain to the distinction between
Conceptus / Res... as noted above....I think he Morral, et al) could do
with a review of William of Ockham, as well.... for a distinction between
Vox (sign) of "first intention" where direct empirical(intuitive)
experience of single physical "res" can be had (and from which the thinking
mind forms a "conceptus") as distinguished from Vox (sign) of "second
intention" where the thinking mind ruminates upon and considers
("abstractly") all sorts of separate (presumed similar) "first intention"
(empirical) experiences and orders them into categories or other such
rational or logical conclusions or explanations therof....As for his
apparent mode or method or "reasoning".... it seems to be "propositional"
and further based on quantities and identity of the "things" being studied
or considered.....My suggestion is... you can also learn a lot about the
"things" studied or under consideration through proper logical opposition
analysis that I have above tried to show at the epistemic level...Through
opposition, one defines a studied "thing" by concluding what "it" is
definitely NOT. If some "thing" is epistemologically Realist
(Conceptus-Objective / Res-Objective) then it cannot be the logical
contrary Idealist (Conceptus-Subjective / Res-Subjective) or the
corresponding "half-poles" of the logical square.... Nominalist or
Phenomenologist....etc.
As for the rest... I have also treated "ontology" and value judgments that
give rise to Ethics in human affairs.... these can be noted (very broadly)
in other of my posts on the internet.... Humanities board... "Snow -White
Tale analysis.... or if someone is truly interested I can give indications
to some of my more in depth copyrighted writings (though
unpublished)....Anyway, my bottom line is.... Worral and this "structural
Realism" definitely seems NOT to be "Realist" as I (and Realists) define
the term.... anything "structural" is... abstracted... order of second
intention Vox or Sign (at best) and , as such tends toward the subjective
and "Idealist" , at least or "Phenomenologist", at most....( talking about
Kant's "noumenon" doesn't help Morral's thinking at all... pure garbage
that, in my opinion) ...."structure" is never "Physical" or objective, in
my opinion... not even at the mathematical level....I say, stick to the
empirical data... if not the "unknown object" cause.... then stick to the
known effects or sensory traces.... get a more precise overview from a
better figurative ( constructed) sensory organ before you conclude
anything....But definitely don't go off into "abstracted"
"Wonder-Land"...talking about the "unobserved".... har....
On Monday, November 26, 2012 10:11:09 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> Mt own view is the argument has been had. John Worrall did a lot of
> it years back. You can get a summary here:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
>
> It's key in sub-atomic physics that the decay trails we record are
> more real than the particles we believe we have 'found' but only 'see'
> through the decay record in several kilometres of instrument.
> Everything we call real has conditions for existence. But you don't
> need to know how to build CERN to trap a photon in a Bose-Einstein
> condensate and 'see' it come out as a matter wave. I don't need to
> define a proton to tell you how an element is likely to react - etc.
> Maybe we should be talking about modern reliableism?
>
> On 27 Nov, 01:02, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I always took it we are mates Nom - so I can say your paranoia knows
> > bounds! Mind's Eye hasn't changed much. I don't take you for a
> > fool. The slap in the face with a wet fish doesn't survive the
> > sophist rationalisation - but argument such as this never stops
> > adherents evading wet fish. The Greeks realised arguments plural can
> > always be made. Their resolution through 'suspended judgement'
> > doesn't work.
> > Nominal in finance means : Describing a variable that does not take
> > inflation into account. For example, when considering GDP growth, if
> > GDP has grown 10% in nominal terms and the inflation rate is 3%, real
> > GDP growth is only 7%.
> >
> > Radioactive half-life is supposed invariable - but we think it does
> > with our distance from the Sun - suggesting a particle - the neutrello
> > (I forget exactly). You and I could get on the track of it if we
> > learned the accounting procedures. Philosophy seems to have little to
> > do with letting 20 ton weights fall on you from a great height because
> > you don't believe in reality.
> >
> > Colour turned out not to be primary, but shorthand for subjective
> > appreciation of frequency (my brother is colourblind). We used to
> > have arguments about colour until he did O level physics. I would
> > guess more protons are close to identical than me and Chaz - but given
> > the scale maybe they aren't as simialr as we think? Perhaps some have
> > freckles? I doubt nominalism or tropical fish realism defines either
> > of us or is worth a rat's arse.
> >
> > On 26 Nov, 17:41, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Here I am... scatter minded as usual... I meant to say Aristotles'
> square
> > > of opposition....but you know thathttp://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
> >
> > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote:
> >
> > > > Conceptus / Res... is the distinction that William of Ockham (maybe
> not
> > > > the first to do so)....The definitions are pretty much true to
> modern
> > > > day.... Concept/ Reference .... Idea / Matter... Mind
> /Body....Motivation
> > > > / Action (for living "animal" sorts) and some others, perhaps.....
> > > > now... a "universal" ... being a composite of separate individual
> "ideas"
> > > > in the mind which are perhaps founded on separate observed
> references
> > > > (or perhaps not)...the universal in and of itself has no objective
> > > > substance... and therefore no "reality" per se (e.g. I know one man
> > > > Archytas and I know another man Chazwin.... they are similar but not
> > > > identical... I thing I'll call the "conceptual" similarities between
> the
> > > > the "universal" man)....the same goes for abstract objects, e.g.
> > > > properties, numbers, propositions, possible worlds"... they are all
> > > > operations of the mind.... call them ideas or any of the other
> related
> > > > terms I set forth above (Cocept, Mind, Motivation... etc), which is
> to
> > > > say... all mental constructs... perhaps of conglomerations of
> separate
> > > > experiences of real object "things (or perhaps not)....
> > > > So of course when you say that nominalists deny the existence and
> thereby
> > > > the reality of such universals and such.... well.... of course...
> you
> > > > should say that they actually deny the "Objective physical
> existence" of
> > > > such conglomerate mental constructs... the way I put it is that
> ideas,
> > > > concepts and such have existence ("nonphysical") within the mind...
> nowhere
> > > > else, per se....hence my motto.... I have never met a circle or its
> > > > diameter, but your ass resembles them, like it or not your ass
> stinks.
> > > > You should note that nominalists usually have no problem accepting
> the
> > > > "physical" or real objective existence of the other side of the
> > > > "split"....i.e., the Res...Reference....Matter.... Body....
> Action.....all
> > > > of which nominalists accept as "rock-solid"....just as I have no
> problem
> > > > accepting the real or "physical" existence of Archytas and
> Chazwin.....I
> > > > just don't see the two of you sharing in one and the same
> (identical)
> > > > "real",as in physical body....
> >
> > > > It gets to a question of how one distributes (or defines) the
> > > > "epistemological" terms of Subjective or Objective over the base
> "split"
> > > > components of a "thinking" or "live" entity... such as an
> animal..... very
> > > > broadly....a Realist views it as Conceptus(objective) / Res(
> > > > objective)...... but an Idealist views it as Conceptus(subjective) /
> > > > Res(subjective)..... a Nominalist views it as Conceptus(subjective)
> /
> > > > Res(objective).... and a Phenomenologist view is as
> Conceptus(objective)/
> > > > Res(subjective).....
> >
> > > > How have you been Archytas?.... well, I hope....Here we are, still
> > > > treading the same epistemological ground....Think... "fours"... I
> keep
> > > > trying to say... remember Plato's square of opposition... and switch
> out
> > > > the "propositions" with sets of Conceptus / Res.... don't think
> > > > ....identity.... think.....opposites....
> >
> > > > Democracy / Capitalism......contrary....Totalitarian / Socialism
> >
> > > > Democracy/ Socialism........contrary.....Totalitarian / Capitalism
> >
> > > > On Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:21:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
> >
> > > >> I would add Nom that nominalism, in both senses (there ate two
> forms),
> > > >> is a kind of anti-realism. For one kind of Nominalism denies the
> > > >> existence, and therefore the reality, of universals and the other
> > > >> denies the existence, and therefore the reality, of abstract
> objects.
> > > >> But what does Nominalism claim with respect to the entities alleged
> by
> > > >> some to be universals or abstract objects, e.g. properties,
> numbers,
> > > >> propositions, possible worlds? Here there are two general options:
> (a)
> > > >> to deny the existence of the alleged entities in question, and (b)
> to
> > > >> accept the existence of these entities but to argue that they are
> > > >> particular or concrete. To the chemist, protons are not 'real' as
> > > >> they are constructed and we can blow them apart. They and smaller
> > > >> 'bricks' are just accounting devices. No doubt I always thought
> you
> > > >> were in 'denial' mate!
> >
> > > >> On 24 Nov, 16:36, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> > I think he is... but I wonder what self-proclaimed "realists"
> like
> > > >> > Archytas, think? Locke was pretty close to being a nominalist,
> > > >> > however....must have gotten it from his Oxford education... much
> as he
> > > >> > reportedly disliked it's(Oxford's) classic bent.....
> >
> > > >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/StHMVhRFImsJ.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
