[C] [Wittrs] Re: The Stuart-Bruce Debate
- From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:36:05 -0800 (PST)
I am reluctant to engage in this discussion at all for reasons most
diplomatically expressed as a wish not to unnecessarily test my own patience,
but I think I'd be remiss not to at least offer this hint to the two of you:
When considering whether a difference in speaking involves a commitment to the
existence of additional entities (forces, substances, et al) in one of those
ways of speaking unless one can effect a perfect translation or derivation from
one way of speaking to the other, it may be helpful to consider a case similar
in some respects but different in others.
The philosophy og chemistry provides such a case. Unlike the transition from
chemistry to biochemistry to biology (where people have been inclined to posit
some additional "vital force"), the transition from physiology and neurology to
psychology (where people have been inclined to posit an additional "mental
substance"), or the transition from the natural sciences to the social sciences
(where people have been inclined to dismiss the scientific legitimacy of the
social sciences altogether), the transition from physics to chemistry involves
no such inclinations (at least since "caloric" and "phlogiston" were rejected).
And yet, "reduction" is far more elusive than has been (until recently) simply
taken for granted!
A good introduction to some of the issues in this fairly new field:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/pdf/poc_=JCE_article.pdf
JPDeMouy
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] Re: The Stuart-Bruce Debate - J DeMouy
