As my last posting for this week:
reacting to James' fine summary --
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
-snip-
A second, smaller camp of historians of science where I have pitched my own
tent want to know what caused modern science. They recognise the enormous
utility of scientific discovery and seek to explain how mankind came by this
wonderful tool.
What comes to mind here devolves from the word 'tool' The view of science
as a handmaid to technology certainly describes its present and recent past
(since the Nineteenth Century). In my view this tool is what has allowed us
to deliver ourselves into the present seeming 'end game' of our culture.
Will this tool serve us after our primary energy sources have been
depleted? How much of it will still be useful without massive amounts of
electricity? Note that I am not dissing scientific inquiry per se -- e.g.,
the Galilel model of systematic curiosity for its own sake. I am
questioning the idea that science is primarily a 'tool' for conquering the
world.
Then, addressing Jerry --
This exchange between Jerry and Steven has enlightened me about Jerry's
project, which I have not until now clearly understood. Now I can see it as
a materialist attack upon a reputedly idealistic physicalist approach to
nature. Can all matter be generalized to mass? I think this must depend
upon the aim of an investigation. On this ground, I can then ask Jerry to
give us an example where using mass for all matter actually gives a
misleading result.
STAN
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <
ste...@semeiosis.org> wrote:
On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:47 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
> v.547.8 Steven writes:
>
> "However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly
> uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely."
>
> I disagree.
> for reasoning see comment to v547.12
>
>
> v547.12 Steven writes:
> The universe, independent of any conception, is profoundly uniform and it
is this uniformity that is the basis of perceived universals. Our
conceptions can have no intrinsic uniformity unless they are founded upon
this profound feature of the world.
>
> I find Steven's statement of principle to be exact.
> Of, course, this line of reasoning explains virtually nothing.
> With the conceptualization of "mass", nature is striped of her identities.
> In my view, the only intrinsic uniformity is of space and time.
> The twisting of the remainder of reality to fit into the uniformity
prison, distorts the truth of matter and the truth of matters.
> This line of reasoning perfectly excluded the mental, bilogical and
chemical sciences because of the necessity for irregular extension. The
essence of the distortion of universality begins with the effort to strip
the atomic numbers of their individuality. The other consequences follow
from this antecedent.
Dear Jerry,
I elaborated on my earlier post on my blog at:
http://stevenzenith.info/the-profound-uniformity-of-the-world
I am not convinced by your contention that there is a "necessity for
irregular extension" that invalidates the conjecture of uniformity and ask
you to substantiate that claim.
This is not to say that there are not such extensions and that they are not
necessary for the refinement of ideas. Surely they are. But from a strictly
epistemological point of view they are indicators, pragmatic and temporary
aberrations that are ultimately resolvable by applying the necessary
uniformity conjecture.
As I note often: if a logical reduction fails it is never an indicator of
the supernatural or a justification for metaphysics. It is an indicator that
we must, of necessity, review the logical construction that failed and
ultimately revise it.
The central point of my argument is that no scientific epistemology is
possible without this conjecture of profound uniformity. If we reject it or
worse, if we find evidence that the universe is not uniform in this way, by
finding a galaxy that does not conform to the laws observed in the others
for example, then all bets are off and no scientific epistemology is
possible.
Since I take space and time to be merely a way of speaking about
mass/energy, as did Einstein, its uniformity or not is a matter of
conception alone. If you disagree then you essentially affirm the case I
make since space and time would characterize all structure in such a system
and the uniform laws and principles would be laws and principles of space
and time.
Incidentally, for me "explanation" is the identification of causes. The
notion of profound uniformity identifies the casual basis, the functional
dependence, of all scientific knowledge; as such it is an explanation of why
such a system works.
With respect,
Steven
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
