Letters to the Editor

• Weinberg et al

  [Read the article: The atheist delusion]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  benthead wrote:

  I haven't read Weinberg--would he really dismiss any interpretive knowledge as nonsense?

  Pretty much so, just as Feynman once did (in the Intro to one of his 'Feynman Lectures' in that three-book series - where he does an excellent take down of philosophy. (On the audio tape of the lecture, it's even better, as he has his class laughing in hysterics)

  My reading in the history of science suggests that Kant's fact/value distinction is still acknowledged by scientists as a pretty fundamental distinction.

  Well, in a way. But you have to go to many individual scientists to get a grip on it.

  As philosopher of Science, Henry Margenau has noted (The Miracle of Existence) in the absence of P-facts and defined C-constructs, any syllogism or argument will have too many meta-statements, and break down to mere circularity.

  What are these?

  Consider E = mc^2, which Einstein eqn. constitutes a specific formalism for a very particular operational definition linking energy and mass. We say it is a closed formalism, embodying closed symbols and operational definitions.

  Scientific epistemology allows us to regard E, m and c as constructs, connected via operational definition to what we call P- (perceptual) facts. That is, these facts are based on experimental measurement confirmed numerous times. Hence, these measurements provide an open avenue out of any would-be tautologies. Thus, we expect a correlation like:

  C ---- P

  re-affirming closure, significance and NO meta-linkage.

  Now, consider the open-ended verbal statement:

  “I see a desk”

  There is here no connectivity between construct and perceptual fact. The words in quotation marks are a metaphor. The desk is NOT a P-fact, nor is seeing it a P-experience (experience wholly grounded in sensation). After all, a host of attributes (color, size, shape, density etc,.) are omitted, so we are left with an abstraction or mere shell of desk in terms of an actual, material correlate.

  The open-ended process above creates a dynamic that yields an effective transition from a recurring complex of attributes, sensations to a simple, bare-bones construct, ‘desk’. This process goes by the name ‘reification’

  In effect, the construct ‘desk’ is – as represented- part of no set of defined ensemble of sensations that can be precisely named, defined. (Since all attributes are omitted). To boil it down, “I see a desk” is devoid of any context since no attributes are assigned. It is left to the beholder or cognite to fill these in.

  By contrast, anyone who invokes 'E = mc^2' has no latitude or degrees of freedom to fill in anything, and hence invite circularity. Since all P-facts are already defined by specific constructs – which have very exact meaning in physics. (e.g. c – the velocity of light, or about 300,000 km/sec)

  There is no wiggle room, and this lack of wiggle room means there exists pre-defined context.

  By contrast to this, the proponent of a vitalist or supernatural paradigm offers a claim that is subjective because the observer must provide an assumed closure - unlike in the case of E = mc^2. where all symbols are fixed.

  This subjectivity arises precisely because the claimant (or uninformed recipient of the claim) must fill in the blanks - so to speak - and provide a subjective frame. For all intents, s/he may also give whatever “definition” he wants of supernatural or "living universe", to try to have it every which way, with no accountability. (Unlike a scientist, who – if he claims observation of a new quark or an axion- must show empirical data that consistently shows it, as well as the means to confirm it.)

  In the absence of P-facts and a defined C-construct (e.g. which concretely answers : ‘What is God (or soul, or supernatural etc.)?, What specific attributes does it have that are recognized by all) the claimant is in a parallel position to the Cretan. He is constrained to making an endless assertion that cannot be fortified or validated by argument.

  He claims something, even if only a possibility statement, but his system remains open since:

  i)He’s not defined what exactly 'God' or ‘supernatural’ means

  ii)He has no P-facts to back it up which can be confirmed (independently) outside his reference frame

  iii)He uses circular arguments to return to his original claim.

  Hence, he is trapped within the realm of meta-statements unable to describe anything outside themselves..

  To escape a Godelian loop, and disclose some semblance of menaing, the supernatural-vitalist is obliged to:

  i)Provide operational definitions for his terms (“God”, “soul”, “supernatural” etc.) , at least

  ii)Provide one single construct based on (i), showing how this construct makes use of the definition,

  iii)Provide a single percept or perceptual FACT that would even allow for it to be compared to a scientific hypothesis- say to explain the same phenomenon. (Energy might be a starting concept here)

  iv) Provide a single unimpeachable fact or example to show life or the cosmos has an immanent meaning or purpose beyond that which humans can craft.

  Permalink Tuesday, December 18, 2007 04:38 PM