[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Platt Holden]

> [Ham]
> I can't speak for Platt, but I have no problem with cause-and-effect as it
> applies to natural process.  Existential reality is intellectualized as a
> causal system because it is experienced as a temporal process.  We have to
> deal with it in the empirical context in which it is revealed to us.  In
> order to control our environment and shape it to our needs, Science has
> given us an understanding of the operative forces responsible for observed
> changes and the means to predict events within a fair degree of reliability.
> 
> I'm not well-versed on quantum mechanics, but I don't see that probability
> has replaced Newtonian causality.  Indeed, the "relative likelihood" of
> specific events is directly related to our cause-and-effect comprehension of
> these forces.
> 
> [Krimel]
> You are speaking from a point of view that was abandoned at least 50 years
> ago. Until you update your thinking you will continue to be lost. At its
> peak Newtonian thinking spoke of cause and effects a relationship of events
> that could be predicted with 100 percent probability. This is not how things
> work.

[Platt] Seems to work pretty well in everyday life. It always amazes me 
that they can land the shuttle with pinpoint accuracy. Besides, I'd say 
there is a 100 percent probability that apples will not fall from trees up.

> [Ham]
> I'm not as comfortable with scientific explanations of what is blithely
> called "Social Darwinism", as I don't believe cognizant organisms are
> restricted to cause-and-effect behavior.  The migration of people across
> territorial boundaries, and their decision to replace agrarian culture with
> industrial production are not causal changes in the scientific sense, nor
> are they statistical probabilities.  I don't think you can explain the
> colonists' decision to form an independent nation governed by consent of
> free people as a cause-and-effect social phenomenon.  Such events are
> rational choices based on man's ingenuity and the desire to enhance the
> quality of his life-experience.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Nothing in what I said refers to Social Darwinism nor was I talking about
> human populations. These comments clearly show your failure to comprehend
> the probabilistic notion of causality and human nature. Whatever we are, we
> are certainly not acausal creatures. Our behavior individually and
> collectively is determined by the interaction of our biology, our past
> experiences and the current environment.

[Platt] Unpredictable responses to DQ as exemplified in the brujo
story don't fit a deterministic worldview.  

> [Krimel]:
> > To the extent that science is impotent in handling significant singular
> > events; it is not unique.  At least science can aim to study the effects
> > and offer up something besides random speculation.
> 
> [Ham]
> We have no disagreement on that score.  Again, we can't fault Science for
> defining the universe as the "emergent system" we experience.  At the same
> time, to assume that experiential reality brings itself into existence
> spontaneously from nothingness has about as much logic as the Munchausen
> notion that a man can lift himself up by his bootstraps.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I think my point is that science acknowledges frankly that chance and
> uncertainty play an inherent role in any kind of understanding. They are
> interwoven into the fabric of the universe. When it comes to the Big Bang,
> which I assume is the singular event in question, it really is understood as
> a best guess. What have you got to offer as an alternative, your phantom
> essence that leaves no trace?

[Platt]
"Chance" is no better explanation for a singular event than "miracle."