File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/97-01-11.090, message 72


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005