From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gwi.net> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: the possibility of naturalism Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:00:50 -0500 Colin wrote: > Much as I agree with the general thrust of Tobin's remarks, I have one > serious quibble. i would object to seeing the TD/ID as basically a temporal > distinction. For, a given theory, say theory X, is still a set of transitive > objects of another set of intransitive objects Y1, Y2---Y8. Such a theory, > that is theory X, only itself becomes an intransitive object when it itself > becomes an object for discussion or scientific appraisal (this doesn't mean > that the theory does not exist or have real effects). But even though our > theory of theory X - theory Z - has as its object of inquiry theory X, > theory X is still a set of transitive objects in relation to the objects Y1, > Y2-----Y8 and no amount of temporal distortion makes it otherwise. This > distinction is needed if we are to retain our fallibility. Confused? join > the club. I think what you're saying is this: let's pretend I'm a sociologist (and here I thought I gave up acting years ago--I'm such a liar!). I'm studying the current practice of Dr Frankenstein, a noted microbiologist. For me, Dr F's scientific activity and theories are intransitive; for Dr F, they're transitive. Yes? Okay, now you say this does not involve a temporal distinction, correct? Hm. For Dr F, of course, what he's done and what he's thought are still part of what he is *doing*, in the present, and thanks to the prospect of discovery, are capable of transformation at any moment (more or less). But *I* can only study what Dr F has actually *done*, and that's in the past (even if the very recent past, say two milliseconds ago). If Dr F suddenly gets devoured by his monstrous pet skin-eating virus, I still have an object of study. The unfortunate Dr F, of course, no longer has an object of study at all. (Bela Lugosi laugh here, and in the background, Mick Jagger singing "T-i-i-i-ime is on my side--yes it is!") Anyway, my point is that nothing can be an object of study until it enters the past. One cannot study the absolute present moment. On Michael's argument: Michael, I have the impression that underlying your point is the notion of a causal hierarchy--the idea that some powers are (so to speak) "bigger" or more powerful or more conditioning than others. I have no quarrel with this notion, I think it's a basic part of emergence (e.g., life emerging from the chemical realm, human society emerging from animal life, etc), although I think it remains an open question what or even whether there is a single most determining causal force within society. But let's leave that to the side. Granting this idea, I think it's still necessary to recognize that being a weaker or less conditioning causal force doesn't make something *not* a generative mechanism, just a weaker one. And in the case of social mechanisms, this may be contextual: for example, in ordinary circumstances we may find that ideas are less powerful than economic relations, but if we were in the midst of a socialist revolution, I'd hope that ideas were more powerful than economics or even guns. --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-gwi.net "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005