Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 11:01:01 -0500
From: derekh-AT-yorku.ca (Derek Hrynyshyn)
Subject: Re: 


Sorry, comrades, but I feel some necessity to respond to Hans:
>
>Derek conceds that the *natural mechanisms* are independent of
>human activity and would also be discovered by beings on another
>star.  But what is being discovered is never the mechanism itself,
>but some approximation to that mechanism.  And Derek wonders whether
>other beings would start out with the same approximation as we.
>
>My answer to this is: Derek's underlying ontology is not one of
>a stratified world with many layers, but one in which there is
>an empirical skin and an infinitely deep cellar underneath.  Since we
>can never step down to the depths of this cellar, it will depend
>on the transitive dimension which aspect of the generative mechanisms
>sitting in this dark cellar will be discovered first.

I don't think this is fair, really. In fact, I can't see where it comes
from. I like the stratified ontology, and am willing to accept it.

In fact, I think that John's response is adequate - RB admits that there is
some confusion with the meaning of 'law' and I am satisfied with that.
Thanks, John.

I think, even, that rejecting the skin/cellar ontology makes it difficult
to use the term 'discover'. If we were to use it, we should say that we do
'discover' the real mechanism, but that our discovery does not produce an
exact representation. Instead of 'discovering' a mechanism, we might say
that we learn to represent it. Did Newton 'discover' gravity? Yes, but we
now know that he had it slightly wrong and someone else had to improve the
representation.

We can step down into the depths of the cellar because the cellar is
layered, and which mecahanisms we discover first will depend on which
actual events we have access to, which ones we experience. So if beings
>from some other planet had different sensory organs or different perceptual
apparatus, they might come up with different ways to represent the real,
although I believe that they would be studying the same mechanisms.

On an aside, I think I dislike RB's use of 'mechanism' - I prefer
'structures' for its different connotation, although it is less direct in
some ways. "Machine" is too dangerous a term, but this is really a
stylistic thing, I think.

derek.


Derek Hrynyshyn,           Graduate Program
Phone: 650-2276               in Political Science,
derekh-AT-yorku.ca            York University    Ross S609

Communications Officer,      CUPE local 3903
cupe3903-AT-yorku.ca * Fax: 736-5480 * Office: 736 - 5154
http://www.yorku.ca/org/cupe/cupe3903.htm