Helmut,
Now you are talking! Excellent post.
"Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously.
But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific
evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term
used. I would prefer the expression: "objective grounds".
Nominalistic philosophizing realies on just definitions. In geometry, as
well as with any deductive inferences (e.g. formal logic) definitions
play a very different role than in empirical sciences, relying a great
deal on abductive % probable inferences.
"Interaction" is a dual idea. CSP deals with such taking them to present
secondness & Secondness.
Which do not mean quite the same in the writings of CSP. He uses
capitalized and not so terms SYSTEMATICALLY. Which has not been taken
into proper consideration in republishing & editing his writings. - It
not just a matter of linguistic concerns & current usage of capitals.
CSP was definely not modern, he truly was post-modern. Anticipating
developments in our millennium.
So, interaction is good to start with, but a third is needed. Mediation
brings in the third.
The third brings in Meaning, not just reference.
Best, Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 9.6.2017 22:16:
John, Kirsti, All,
Now I think that it was naiive of me to put "explanation" in
opposition to "magical thinking", which "reverses cause and effect".
Because cause and effect are reversed all the time in what we call
"interaction". And "explanation" has no objective definition, it
merely is subjective, when an individual says: "Ok, I am satisfied,
this explains it for me".
Now I say: Magical thinking is to take an effect for cause and be
satisfied with that, and stop inquiring.
To be open minded would mean not to stop the inquiry, and say: Nothing
is the cause alone, nothing the effect alone, what I am looking for is
interaction with known other effects and laws.
I doubt, that a magnetic field is fully explained to everybody. At
least for me, there remain many mysteries. But there is known
interaction between the magnetic field and other phenomena: Electric
current, change of electric field, presence of iron or nickel...
With the morphogenetic field this is not so.
Also the memory of water is mysterious to me: I think, that only solid
structures (stable networks) can have a memory.
This is not a criticism of Sheldrake´s: It is not his fault, that
there are not sufficient interactions discovered, that would sort of
explain "morphogenetic field" and "water memory" to me.
All I want to say is: I do not believe in two worlds (a physical and a
magical or fine-substantional (? german:"feinstofflich") one) between
which there is no measurable interaction, and the said phenomena are,
experimentally well confirmed ok, but not causes, but effects, of
something not yet uncovered, I guess.
Best,
Helmut
07. Juni 2017 um 08:54 Uhr
"John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,
I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
tied up with other things. But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis. For a 1962 article about
Waddington's theories, see
http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C
[1]
.
Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis
of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by
Waddington. See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf
[2]
Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a
year
at Harvard studying the philosophy of science. His primary reference
is to Waddington's work. But many scientists believe that he crossed
the thin line between genius and crackpot: he took a reasonable
hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about
parapsychology. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
[3]
For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/
[4]
Some comments on previous notes:
Jerry
> Are you saying Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?
No. I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are
related: both are global functions of a system, and local equations
of motion can be derived from them. For any physical system, the
Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian
represents
the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time).
Kirsti
> Are there dogmas in science? Could there be?
Gary R,
> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific...
Science, as science, does not have dogmas. As Peirce stated in his
First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry."
But scientists are human, and some are dogmatic. They might
do everything they can to block hypotheses they don't like.
Kirsti
> If so, how could one tell?
Sometimes it's hard to tell. A theory that has proved to be
reliable for a wide range of applications is hard to give up.
Tycho Brahe, for example, correctly believed that the Ptolemaic
theory of epicycles was more accurate than the circles in
the theory by Copernicus.
But it was Kepler, Brahe's assistant, who discovered that
elliptical orbits were more accurate than the epicycles.
Kirsti
> Are there flaws and shortcomings in [Sheldrake's] theory?
People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for
centuries without success. There is nothing wrong with considering
the idea as an interesting hypothesis. But Sheldrake seemed to be
just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing.
Helmut
> "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit".
Words, by themselves, can't explain anything. Peirce admitted
that the following two statements are different ways of stating
the same observation:
Opium puts people to sleep.
Opium has dormitive virtue.
By applying Ockham's razor, nominalists would "shave away"
the concept of "dormitive virtue" because it is an unnecessary
assumption. But Peirce said that the assumption that there
exists some underlying principle or substance can suggest a useful
methodology: analyze the chemicals in opium to find some substace
that has "dormitive virtue".
In this case, the chemists discovered morphine as the common
chemical that had that dormitive virtue. The neuroscientists
then began the search for naturally occurring chemicals in
the brain, and they discovered endomorphins -- whose structure
had that critical "dormitive virtue".
In summary, the hypothesis of "dormitive virtue" inspired
a successful search for chemicals and mechanisms tht might have
been overlooked.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [5] .
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C
[2] http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
[4]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
