Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Modernism, Reason and Myth



Rahul is right that as evidence for some empirical claim, analogies have
little scientific value. ALthough he retreats a little, correctly, from
his hard-line position, by noting that scientists will in fact accept
analogical arguments as evidential considerations, and as a matter of fact
in a close case a good analogy might be decisive in theory choice. But
there is a deeper point that Hesse insists on. This goes beyong the
context-of discovery/cvontext of justification distinction (much
attacked), which says that it doesn't matter by what wacky means
scientists come up with their ideas as long as they're properly conformed
according to accepted rational canons. Hesse points out that analogies are
at the heart of many scientific theories, even in the excat sciences. It
might not be overstating the point to say that the analogies are in some
cases partly constitutive of the theories. To take one example that Lisa
will like: consider thea pplication of "rational choice theory" to
evolutionary biology, treating organisms (even plants) as if they were
economically rational agents.

--Justin 

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Rahul Mahajan wrote:

> Justin:
> >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.
> 
> I really hate this kind of thing. No, I never said the use of analogy is
> not essential to the sciences. Justin, I'm sure you're aware of the
> possibly overstated but no doubt significant distinction between context of
> discovery and context of justification. The use of analogy in making
> models, forming hypotheses, and getting some vague idea of reasonableness
> is very clearly essential to science -- I've even done it myself. Science
> cannot be done by computers. On the other hand, no scientist will accept an
> analogy as an actual piece of evidence in favor of some hypothesis,
> although it can certainly have an impact on whether one tends to believe it
> or not.
> 
> You seem to agree with the points I actually made, though.
> 
> Rahul
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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