From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: BHA: Re: real essences
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:15:12 -0400


Hi Ruth--

>              My interlocutor suggested that modern
> experimental science has itself done away with any pre-Newtonian talk of
> "essences" in virtue of which things occur -- that the ontology of RTS, at
> least, is at odds with the substantive findings of natural scientists.

Personally, I think this debate should start at an earlier point.  What is
the evidence for your interlocutor's claim, including the scientific
field(s) from which it (supposedly or actually) derives?  I've seen a lot of
claims about "science" that were staked solely on popular press accounts of
quantum physics as construed under the Copenhagen interpretation,
consequently involving terrible oversimplifications and sensationalizations.
The Copenhagen interpretation (which was developed explicitly to defend
positivist views of reality) is not the only possible approach to quantum
mechanics, and in any event, whether or not the Copenhagen interpretation is
correct, I'd certainly hesitate to use it as representative of science as a
whole.  Besides, it is quite possible for scientists to make claims during
their "nocturnal reflections" that are incompatible with their actual
diurnal practice.

Quick note to Mark: it's not quite correct to say that the domain of the
real consists of "a set of laws and hidden structures."  It consists of
structures and generative mechanisms possessing (or in some cases, simply
being) powers and susceptibilities, and these structures and mechanisms may
be quite apparent as well as hidden.

Thanks, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




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