[lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social "science" as science
- From: "Eric " <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:58:08 -0400
>> take then causal statements that have no value attached to them I, for one,
>> am of the opinion that the belief that the young universe was extremely
>> dense because of the quantum states involved is true. then what? what is the
>> value? who is valuing it? come on...
Are there causal statements with no value attached? I don't know. If facts
about the cosmic microwave background convince you of notions about the state
of the early universe, then you accept inferences about the Friedman equations,
the works of those guys at Bell Labs, etc., as true, then you have accepted the
majority view of cosmology as true, as settled science, ignoring or bracketing
questions or problems that arise from it.
You imagine "a very dense early universe," where no photons can escape. In
imagining that state of affairs, you imagine something that could not be seen
(no light) or experienced (too dense). Creating this mental structure does
imply something about value. Perhaps we are using the term in different ways?
Understand that I am not attacking naturalism in philosophy of science, but
rather am not fully convinced of it.
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:
