BHA: Epitomizing logic as empirical experiences

[danile.bwanikah961@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Citizens !

Some one here mentioned water in all its forms , for example ice water, 
water in liquid form and water in gaseous form like mist for example. I 
rushed to my CD encyclopaedia to check on these different properties of 
water and what the concept 'water' really meant.

I was surprised to find an explanation of water which is a 'reified 
graphical representation' of the different states, i.e. water's molecular 
representation. However, what did not appear here, is a corresponding 
mathematical structure of the same. Notice too, in most cases all 
in/organic material have taken on this form of explanation besides 
codification.

Now, are these reified graphical representations facts of NATURE i.e. 
Physical or EMPIRICAL facts?

This brings me to another very important issue that is, what is the 
difference between CONTEXTUAL and CONCEPTUAL facts? And if  scientific 
analyses strip things of nature of their contextual facts and instead 
install or attach to them conceptual meanings, is this not a categorical 
error or rather an epistemical error? What are the consequences? 

Let us say we find a mathematical representation for the different forms 
of water, will water take on different conceptual meaning i.e. Empirical 
explanation rather that its physical meaning i.e. Contextual meaning in 
different physical states?

Consider human behaviours.

There is more to this :in regard to the social realm - social reality, as 
opposed to physical realities and empirical realities. 

Let us extend this matter of fact a little bit, that we strip social 
reality of her contextual meaning. Then what is it that we are liable to 
get as social scientist? I was thinking of econometrics and medical 
statistics  for example i.e. radiography in some instance of analysis.    

Are social,  physical facts readily reducible to calculated empirical 
facts? In my opinion there should be a difference between logical 
(scientific) and empirical facts as  well as simple common sense (values, 
taboos, customs etc.).

take flying objects for example, a bird and a plane: under what mechanism 
does these two objects, do the act of flying in relation to gravitation 
pull which flying planes defy?! Why do butterflies don't fall from the 
sky?

THEN we can TALK about LAWS: if we discover the laws of nature, does it 
follow that we have understood the way nature is or simply is 
epistemically explained? 

And does it mean we have understood anything about nature?

Is there no problem in epitomizing logic as empirical experiences or the 
other way round?

Any opposing arguments ?

bwanika



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---