[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

Matt said: The point I'm trying to convince you of is that to give a 
microstructural
explanation of an event does not imply reductionism.  All it does is give an
explanation for a particular purpose (prediction mainly).  You can have
neurological explanations and mystical explanations.  Reductionism would be
if you thought a given explanation _emptied out_ all there was to a given
event.


DM: I think what I object to with this is that in my world view the vast
majority of events or behaviours could never be explained, science
is only able to offer descriptions & predictions of events that repeat.
Very few events have only repeat aspects involved (SQ), most
of reality involves DQ. This is why in science it is hard to achieve
anything, and you have to set up controlled experiments to create
repeats and controlled environments to make things or prove
predictions. This is SQ blinding one from the dominance of DQ.
Evolutionary explanation for example is not related to prediction
but is simply natural-history, a story of what events happened and
that will never be repeated. See John Dupre's The Disorder of Things
of as he explains the general disorder and occassional order of things,
I have this on my bookcase next to Foucault's Order of Things -just for a 
laugh.