[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

Hi Matt

Problem is bundles of scientists talk like this,
aboiut asking nature questions, and getting ambigious
answers. I think this is right and unavoidable because
in science we do frame controlled experiements with specific
linguistic questions, I can think of no other way to frame what
is decided by controlled experiments than answer to specific question
in a language we have constructed to grant events significance
within a language. It is this use of nature as arbiter in our scientific
disputes that allows science to make theoretical constructions that
can be widely accepted and built upon in a way not readily available
in the human sciences -largely because controlled experiments cannot
be arranged (eg bringing babies up in a lab and not a home).

I also still want to give weight to the non-linguistic in life and existence
because this has a big role, there just are situations that remain key
and pre-linguistic, like not getting killed, having stuff to eat, other 
needs,
etc that are 'material' (or lower level) in some sense and cannot be
managed by simply changing your ideas. And this remains politically 
significant.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


> David,
>
> I figured it was because you liked me.
>
> I don't doubt there are non-linguistic elements to our experiences.  In
> fact, I think we should probably say that the linguistic and the
> non-linguistic are inseparable.  I just think, for the most part, common
> sense and science handles it well enough.  (I remember reading the trouble
> Rorty has had with figuring out what Donald Davidson means by his very 
> sharp
> distinction between the Mental and the Physical, on how that could not be 
> a
> regression on Davidson's part, and, with the help of Bjorn Ramberg, he
> finally saw the point, which is something that is still too esoteric for 
> me
> to fully comprehend, but I think it has to do with just this kind of 
> thing.)
>
> Realism, in the sense you seem to be using it, just looks like common 
> sense.
>  Saying science has to handle non-linguistic signs from nature, answer its
> questions and the like, is an okay heuristic, but I still don't like it 
> and
> won't use it for the same pragmatist reasons I used, what must be years 
> ago
> now, when you first talked like that in relation to Rorty's philosophy of
> science: roughly, nature (commonsensically) doesn't talk and thinking that
> nature talks is one of the things that has caused so much junk in the
> philosophy of science.  I don't think that makes me an irrealist, I just
> think I'm eschewing a particular metaphor to get it off the ground.
>
> Matt
>
>>Hi Matt
>>
>>Yes, DMB has to answer it too, but I like picking on you,
>>your my favourite. I think we need the distinction because there
>>is a non-linguistic element to experience. I find your reluctance
>>to talk apples suspicious, but well done you've taken the forbidden
>>fruit. Realism requires us to have an ability to answer questions about
>>nature via the non-linguistic signs of nature, this is what science has
>>to deal with, what is created in controlled experiments and tested.
>>
>>DM
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>