[lit-ideas] Re: Transcendental and otherwise
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:03:45 +0900
First, let me express my appreciation to Robert Paul for his elegant
exposition of what Rorty is up to. I do, however, want to challenge
one point, speaking not for Rorty (I don't know his position in
sufficient detail) but for myself.
On Jan 7, 2008 1:28 PM, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The very idea of 'better and worse fit' here assumes there is something that
> serves as
> a standard, whether it is the ancient standard meter or the shape, size,
> and heft of a football.
Please recall my take on Chomsky's discussion of scientific method. In
the Evaluation Procedure model, which I prefer, the necessary input is
two or more theories and a body of data. The output is is only a
ranking that says that one theory is a closer fit to **That Data**
than the others to which it is compared. The possibility that
scientists will come up with new data that require an adjustment in
the ranking or a new theory that better accounts for the original data
is left open. That is the way science advances. There is no universal
standard against which theories can be measured in absolute terms.
There are, of course, widely accepted standards, the standard meter,
for example. These are very useful, and some, those which make up the
metric system, for instance, may seem more elegant and simpler to work
with than others. There are also theories that assert that some
standards, e.g., the speed of light or Planck's constant, are, in
fact, universal, but these are only theories (albeit very well
grounded ones) and, like all theories, subject to revision.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
