Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
Dick, you're talking about the definitions of the words in an explanation, right? And how they act as constraints to the meaning provided by the explanation. Is that correct?
|
Somewhat, but I really don't worry much about the clarity of English in general, there are many ways to skin a cat (or so they say
). The real issue is that definition always amounts to a constraint on what is being talked about; however, people seldom analyze the implied constraints tending to presume their emotional understanding of the definition is adequate.
There is a subtle aspect to science unrealized by even many scientists. When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. Suppose one begins by defining downhill with a carpenters level.
I hope you understand what a carpenters level is! It's one of those wooden sticks with a curve glass tube in the middle containing water with a bubble and some marked lines in the glass which indicate when the bubble is centered. I wouldn't make that comment except for the fact that I was once talking to someone and it turned out that they didn't know what a carpenters level was (and didn't bother to ask when I brought it up).
At any rate, if one tries to design an experiment to see if water runs downhill and defines downhill via a carpenters level, one has made a very major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment. Downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of your definition.
What I am getting at is that scientists seldom waste much time worrying about the consequences of their definitions; they almost always simply presume that they know exactly what they are talking about. I have discovered that the definition of "an explanation" has some very extensive logical consequences which are not at all obvious. That is why I have gone to such care in specifying exactly what a definition is: "it is a method of obtaining your expectations from what you know" and that line all by itself opens the door to some very interesting properties.
You are wasting all your time thinking about the very simple mechanism I have set up to handle three very important facts: that all explanations are based on knowing less than everything, that your knowledge changes and sometimes what you think you know is wrong. My position is that these three fact are basic limitations on any explanation and have far reaching consequences.
The favorite issue philosophers like to concentrate on is "how do you tell the difference between what is true and what seems to be true". They will not allow me the division unless I tell them how to perform the separation. It is, of course, clear to them that the separation cannot be performed and they waste all their time trying to convince me that the only possible logical conclusion is "there is no difference". And that leads directly to the "Realism"/"Solipsism" dichotomy. Case closed, I must be wrong!
A is what we are trying to explain and is a set of significant things: objects, concepts, relationships ... . It makes utterly no difference what goes in to make
A up. It's just what is to be explained and nothing more. Is it real? If you want it to be real, it's real; if not, it's not. What
A is has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments.
B is a finite collection of elements of
A which constitute a change in what you know about
A. A finite collection of objects, concepts, relationships which are part of what you want to explain. A change in the information central to your explanation. But what these elements are is absolutely irrelevant to my argument. What they are is part of the explanation you have come to believe.
C is a finite collection of sets
B. The net total accumulated changes in information central to your explanation. What you know about what you are trying to explain. (There is utterly no way for you to identify what objects, concepts, relationships, ... go to make up
C and the issue has no bearing on my arguments.) In fact, in all probability, your explanation is going to include other objects, concepts, relationships, ... which are a complete fabrication of your mind and not part of
A at all.
D is the set of things significant to your explanation which are not part of
A. These are things which would be required (part of
C if your explanation is correct). Since, unless you are all knowing and
A is entirely available to you the possibility always exists that you are wrong, you must assume that some part of "what you think you know" is actually
D so it is a very important component of your explanation and not to be neglected.
God only knows what part of what you think you know is correct. The only thing I am concerned with is the fact that it exists: there is something which is to be explained even if I don't know what it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Hey Doc,
You may consider checking into some of the posts in this thread ...
|
I noticed you when you first came around and thought some of you comments indicated a seriously rational mind. I have already read most all of your posts and the posts which surround them. I think "time" is a very misunderstood concept. You should read the thought experiments I have posted on
"What is time?" Read the referenced post and the next four. You might enjoy twisting your mind around that and, if you do, the results will be educational.
Have fun – Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous
Re: Defining the nature of rational discussion!
