From: P.NODEN-AT-lse.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 08 May 97 11:04:53 GMT
Subject: Re: BHA: I don't know about logic


     Marshall wrote...
        I've been following this thread and think we're getting a bit
        sloppy about our meanings.  Could someone please define "logic" and 
        explain what they mean by an "open system" in this context.  RB 
        uses "open system" to refer to an ontological realm that's not 
        subject to the strong controls of laboratory science.  While I'm 
        willing to accept a symbolic realm like logic is real and therefore 
        ontological, how does it make sense to speak of logic as a system 
        that can be open or closed?
     
        Well, it's a while since I've tried to talk philosophy so the sloppiness 
     is likely to continue.  First things first.  I agree with your account of 
     open systems.  Sadly, I can't define logic (let alone do it) but I'm 
     uncomfortable with the idea that logic is 'real and therefore ontological'. 
     Anyway, I suppose all I was getting at was this...
     
        Logic might be considered closed in so far as there are no unwanted 
     causal mechanisms which can mess up our results.  I am being sloppy, but 
     it's just a vague analogy.  With natural languages definitions slide 
     around, especially when we try to refer to stuff in the intransitive 
     dimension.  Here, I suppose I am saying that attempts to refer to stuff, 
     things, processes, whatever, are open.  This is *not* because the 
     intransitive dimension comes along and interferes with my statements (eg I 
     say a lump of metal is gold, subsequently it is demonstrated to be fool's 
     gold - this is an example of what I don't mean) - the transitive and 
     intransitive dimensions are simply never going to meet.  Rather, I mean 
     that natural languages, when we use them to attempt to refer to things are 
     being used to do a job (in a Wittgensteinian kind of way) and part of their 
     job description is to describe new situations, objects, events etc.  
     Conseqently natural language is always changing and it is therefore 
     extremely difficult to identify what it is we mean in any statement at any 
     time (eg this drivel).
     
        A simplistic image might help me to explain better.  Right, suppose the 
     intrasitive dimension is my carpet.  Suppose that we are using a natural 
     language to describe the carpet.  The natural language is a net, suspended 
     above, and not touching, the carpet.  Each word is a hole in the net and 
     tries to refer to whatever can be seen through that hole.  As we try to 
     describe patterns on the carpet (ie we use the language) we find that the 
     holes are not always in the best places.  Consequently we pull at strings 
     to change the shape of holes to make them more useful for our descriptions.
     
        Right, what pearls of wisdom (not) do I want to pull out of this 
     picture.  Well, i) our descriptions change but remain entirely separate 
     from reality, ii) as the shape of the holes change they only change in 
     relation to each other (changing the shape of the hole doesn't change the 
     pattern on the carpet).
     
        Using this picture unjustifiably and thoroughly unphilosophically, I 
     suppose I meant that natural languages and their descriptions are open in 
     that other words (holes), being manipulated to perform other descriptive 
     purposes, keep interfering with any particular hole in which I'm 
     interested.  In this sense, natural language in the transitive dimension is 
     open.
     
        Right.  In contrast, logic doesn't refer.  Logic *can* be endlessly 
     unpacked, it's all already there, it doesn't *do* anything.  [I know 
     nothing about logic so this is probably rubbish.]  In this sense it is a 
     closed system because its 'p's, 'q's, 'not p's and the rest of it have no 
     impact on each other.
     
        That's what I meant.
     
        Now, the rather scary point which I've been avoiding is that I suppose I 
     would also want to be able to substitute 'scientific theory', 'explanatory 
     model' and the rest of it for 'natural language'.
     
        It may be that the story I've been telling is a) nonsense, b) simplistic 
     and/or c) thoroughly unBhaskarian.  Maybe someone could let me know.
     
        Philip 
     



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---