Re: BHA: Emergence

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Viren--

Just to butt in briefly: I think what Ruth is saying -- and certainly what I
would say -- is that ideas qua ideas are all at the *same* ontological
level.  However, they may refer to (real or hypothetical) entities at
different ontological levels.  I don't think one can use explanatory power
as a mark of ontological difference among ideas, because the explanations
concern referents.

It should be noted that the concept of emergence is not restricted to the
formation of new entities within new, supervening powers (such as life out
of chemical interactions), as "superstructures."  There is also the
possibility of new entities *within* a given level (wolves, chickens and
frogs within the realm of the biological), as "intrastructures" (see DPF
53).

Marko wrote:

> Of course if evolution is a mere social construction then of course
> anything goes but thankfully science is not a social construction!

Sigh.  I suppose we'll never get past this.  The objects of science may not
be social constructions, but *knowledge* of those objects *must* be a social
product.  To fail to distinguish between knowledge and the object of
knowledge is the epistemic fallacy.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---