[lit-ideas] Topic/Focus -- Was: Popper on "Observation"

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:28:48 EDT

 
 
In a message dated 8/25/2004 6:11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
is  science valuable for producing tautolgies ['All swans are
white'] or  isolated but striking observation statements ['Look there's a swan
with JLS  on it, and look there's a bus with Mike Geary on it'? Or is it
rather more  to be valued for producing theories of great generality and
explanatory  power ['E=mc2'] that may nevertheless be tested, often
ingeniously, by some  observation? 




----
 
I would phrase the phrase differently:
 
    "Look, Mike Geary is on that bus."
 
-- rather than the way McEvoy phrases it, with _the bus_ being the topic  and 
focus.
 
Note that it's the "look" that _presupposes_ (or implicates) that the  
observation is striking. Cf.
 
   "Here goes Mike Geary on that bus again"
 
does not strike me as 'striking' at all. 
 
Cheers,
 
JL
 


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

[lit-ideas] Topic/Focus -- Was: Popper on "Observation"

Other related posts: