[lit-ideas] Re: Patrick and the Snakes
- From: "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:55:36 -0400
JLS: Only in the context of a need for a justification, scientific or
other,
does the logic of verification (or falsification if you mustn't?) make
Griceian sense.
Surely, I am not very griceful in my approach to this issue, dropping my
kuhn-skin cap and overheating the popper. However, I think the basis of
the debate hinges on the issue of EXPLANATION, which is a vexed notion.
Let me...err...explain. Aristotle's "reasoned fact" may have been good
enough for him. Hempel's covering law model does not work since it
allows effects to explain causes. Causality models do not work in
general. Hybrid approaches to explanation lack coherence. So one may be
stuck in Quine's web of belief, updating until the dinner bell sounds,
and one is no longer sure what a "law of nature" truly is.
Unless, that is, one admits the secret shame of science: it is an
ever-growing Empire State Building of clarity built on a foundation of
clouds. The metaphysical elements in explanation support our cathedral
or mosque, and no matter how many times an exterminator like Ayer or
Rorty show up, metaphysics keeps coming back, exactly like the cat in
the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mCHhXUtcWw
Regards,
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
