Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Modernism, Reason and Myth



At the risk of reviving a thread that Leo notes is dying I will say a
couple things:

1. Leo wants me to conced he may havea  point in his critique of modernist
notions of logic and reason. I don't understanf what the critique is, so
I'll pass on the concession.

2. In sweeping analogy and whatnot into logic Leo extends "logic: far
beyond what any contempory philosopher would. Logic in modern philosophy
constitutes a number of mathematical theories, most fundamentally the
predicate calculus, concerned with theorems about deductively valid
arguments. Analogy has no place it. Nor is there any such thing as
"inductive" logic, despite the best attempts of the logical positivism to
articulate one in rigorous terms. There are Bayseans who think that
scientific reasoning can be explicated in terms of probablity theory, but
the view has not gained wide acceptance.

3. That said, scientific reasoning includes a not more than logic. Apart
>from some corners of the exact sciences it remains inductive, which isn't
suprising, since logic can only give you what's already in your premises
while science purportsd to tell us things about the world we didn't know
before. Contrary to what Rahul says, the use of analogy is essential to
the sciences, even the exact ones. See Mary Hesse's wonderful Models and
Anoglies in Science. (She was my old grad school advisor at Cambridge). Of
course the scientifiuc use of analogies is very different from the old
Humanist approach that Rahul rightly says was squelched in the
Enlightenment. It's controlled by its value in producing empirically
testible hypothesis, for one.

--Justin



On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Rahul Mahajan wrote:

> In this case, Leo, it has been understood that analogy is not a valid mode
> of reasoning since the Enlightenment. Only a few "intellectuals" who don't
> seem to get the Enlightenment would contend on this and a variety of other
> issues. Analogy can never make a case; this is obvious. Using analogy to
> establish an argument is like trying to explain natural phenoemena using
> the principles of sympathy and contagion (Yes, I know that was an analogy).
> 
> Rahul
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---