The particular
example of Newton and Einstein is perhaps unfortunate since, as you say,
one can derive much of classical mechanics from QM. Nonetheless,
Newton's theory was incomplete and, insofar as it stated universal laws
without appropriate qualification for extreme cases (in terms of speed,
mass, or energy), it was wrong because the laws do not apply under such
conditions. However, this is all a diversion from the
issue.
The history of
science is replete with examples in which theories were totally
discarded in favor of new theories. Kuhn, Harre, and others have written
on this. Well-rehearsed examples include the Ptolemaic theory of
planetary motion, phlogiston, and spontaneous generation. There's also a
literature questioning the so-called scientific method. On one hand,
studies of science (including Kuhn, but particularly people like Latour)
shows convincingly that science involves a whole lot more that the
scientific method and that many important scientific discoveries do not
fit the model of the scientific method. On the other, by what virtues
does the scientific method produce legitimate knowledge rather than
simply provide a template that keeps people
busy?
Nonetheless, all
this is besides the point. Even if science progressed linearly, with no
paradigm shifts or revisions, that still would not be grounds for
claiming that the reality of science's object depends in any way on the
correctness of science. You might want to look at Richard Bernstein's
Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Although I have severe
criticism of many aspects of the book, Bernstein's discussion of the
Cartesian anxiety is right on target. By this he means that element of
Western culture that cannot accept the limits of human knowledge or its
fallibility.
Mathematics is a special case in that in is not
the study of something external to itself. I believe Husserl
had a name for such sciences. Nonetheless, mathematics most certainly is
socially constructed. One has simply to look at mathematical programming
or probability to see that certain practical concerns outside
mathematics motivated its development in certain directions. Von
Neumann, Nash, and that whole group at Princeton during the forties got
their "juice" from the war effort and defense funding. Some of the most
famous mathematical problems have names that make quaint references to
historically specific, socially constructed practices ("the traveling
salesman problem," game theory, Buffon's (did I spell that right?)
needle problem, etc.).
First of all
Mathematics is the study of things which are external to themselves, ie
I would argue in favour of a platonic realist conception of mathematics.
The very fact that the laws of physics are mathematical suggests this.
Whatever motivates Mathematicians is neither here nor there. The
knoweledge which they give is real and correct. I could care less what
motivated a mathematician in his choice of topic, thats irrelevant to
the result.
Beyond this we can look at mathematical axioms
and their fundamental elements. Consider number theory, for
instance. It's been a long time since I studied it, so I have a hard
time recalling specific details, but it definitely builds from smaller,
discrete units to larger ones.
No
arthimetic is non algorthmic.
The undefined terms and basic elements,
as well as the logical structure based on them, bear an
uncanny resemblance to the atomism and individualism so prevalent in
Western, liberal thought. In principle, there is no reason why the
undefined terms and fundamental elements of an axiomatic system could
not be relations, networks, or processes that are logically prior to
individuals. Do you suppose the fact that number theory build its logic
the other way is accidental? Do you think that all mathematical concepts
can be expressed equally and have the same meaning in all
languages?
I think this
stretches things a bit. First of all to assert that the logical
structure of mathematics, (recall at any rate that mathematics is
ultimately non algorthmic) has absolutely nothing to do with "western,
liberal thought"! This is silly and I think bares out my position. A
"realist" in no way could accept these assertions. At any rate I dont
see how "relations" or "networks" are logically prior to individuals. To
have a "relationship" or a "network" is to presuppose individuals. What
is a social relationship if not a relationship between individuals? What
is a romantic relationship but a relationship between two individuals?
If we take seriously what you say then a romantic relationship, being
logically prior to individuals, constructs the individuals in the
relationship.
I don't know what you mean
by human nature or, for that matter, by "human." Are you positing a
constant human nature for all humans starting 1,000,000, 100,000,
10,000, 1,000, 100, or 10 years
ago?
Yes I am positing a human nature since our
evolution in Africa. Social evolution would be a part of that nature.
This is a pretty uncontroversial
claim.
I am not making an assertion of what exactly is
human nature, our scientific knoweledge is too limited for that. I am
simply asserting that we do have a nature that is space, time and
culturally invariant. It seems to that you reject that there can be any
such human nature, that humans are "socially
constructed".
Are you assuming human
nature is a characteristic of individual humans rather than of humanity
as a whole?
Yes, human nature is a characterstic of
individual humans.
What specifically would
count as human nature? There's so much variability among humans and
human societies that we'd have to discard most characteristics to find
that essential kernel that you're calling human
nature.
No, I see pretty much a great deal of variety
amongst dogs. So what? The variability amongst human societies that you
assert is real, but not as large or profound as you make out. The fact
that there are so many natural languages does not change the fact that
all languages are essentially the same, that there is just one language,
universal grammar. The diversity, seemingly significant, has obscured
this fact but no longer. Same goes for
societies.
Without defining this
kernel more clearly it's impossible to evaluate your claim since your
claim is a mixture of examples and bold assertions. If you're saying
human nature includes such generalities as (1) people communicate with
each other, (2) they transform the material world in order to survive,
and (3) they only exist in societies, I'll grant you there's such a
thing as human nature. However, I don't think that takes us very far. If
I understand correctly what you're saying, you believe that social
things like your bank account can be explained, ultimately, by quantum
mechanics. Let's not use your bank account as an example, since that's
your private information. Let's take something related but more public.
Please outline an explanation for the "dot com" crash, as well as the
relative development of computer-related firms in Silicon Valley versus
Boston's Route 128 in terms of the quantum mechanics that underpins
biological nature?
The underlying laws of physics enable us to
exercise our free will. How that is so is a question for science.
Science has gotten the answer yet, but that does not mean that this will
require a supernatural explanation.
Note
that humans are not the only organism's to have societies so if we
assert that there exists some unnatural form of existience, "social
kinds", are termite societies a part of this unnatural domain? If not,
why not?
Of course everything in the
world is part of the world, so nothing is outside nature. The fact that
people live in societies is not "unnatural."
My point
precisely.
The point is that human societies
vary and have their own histories and geographies. The point is also
that human societies have their own causal powers and dynamic
properties. Capitalist societies have business cycles, feudal societies
do not. Attitudes and behaviors regarding sex in nineteenth century
South Sea Islands were different from those in Victorian England. The
largest buildings at the centers of human settlements have been
pyramids, coliseums, churches, and World Trade Centers. If everything
can be reduced to biological nature, how would you explain such
variations?
How is that we live in a Capitalist society and
not a feudal one? The evolution from feudalism to capitalism occured
because of an inherent feature of feudalism. So capitalism will evolve
into what? You should be able to tell me given that Capitalism has its
own casual powers, and perhaps suggest a time frame. Human socities have
the histories and structures which we choose to give them, and our
choice must be constrained by our biological nature's interface with the
enviornment. Other than that we can do as we like becuase it is in our
nature to so act. We can build World Trade Centers, but not in
the clouds. Why cant we simply socially construct a city in the clouds?
One might respond that there is the small problem of gravity but of
course Newton's law is just a social construction. It could be
wrong.
Let's test this.
I believe viruses cause disease by taking over certain cellular
functions, but I recognize that this may be wrong or that another
explanation may be equally legitimate. Does this mean that viruses must
not be real or that they really do not cause disease this way? At the
very least it would seem you'd have to concede that I have the right to
claim viruses may really cause disease as described. In your
opinion, what would one need to go beyond this and assert legitimately
that viruses probably cause disease by taking over cell
functions or just that viruses cause disease by taking over cell
functions? I don't see how the truth or falsity of these assertions
would be affected by me changing my tune and saying I'm right ("I'm
always right, and I never lie" -- Firesign Theater) or that only this
explanation could possibly be correct.
I believe Osama Bin Laden has been sending mini
fighters to overtake certain celluar fuctions thus causing
disease..."this explanation could possiblly be correct". Is it? Why
not?
Marsh
Feldman