Re: more squiggly lines

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:37:56 -0700 Mason Clark <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   NO science "explains."  Science ONLY
> describes.  Theology explains.

Hi Mason,

Well what I accused Gunnary of asserting implicitly,
you assert unblushingly.

So my physicist friend, I imagine you---a disciple of
Galileo---leaning from the tower of Pisa and dropping a wooden ball
and a canon ball from the tower in front of some Aristotelian scholars
(who, as you know, predict that heavier objects fall faster than
lighter ones).  After measuring a slight difference in the time
they take falling to the ground you will, I take it, join the
Aristotelians because their theory is more descriptive?

I prefer Galileo's willingness to *explain* the result in terms
of air resistance ("viscosity").

When only theology is allowed to be "explanatory", then we have
abandoned the ordinary sense of the word.  Science is driven
fundamentally by the desire to explain observed regularities
in ways that will allow us to anticipate other, novel regularities.
Noticing that we can keep asking why until we do not have answers
does not imply that all the "whys" we did give answers to were
not explanations.

> By the way, will someone define "epistemology" as it's being
> used here?

It's being used in no special way.

Epistemology is defined by the suspicious and crabby scribblings
expressing frustration about ability of almost everyone engaged in
expanding human functioning to do so without angsting about the deep
metaphysical reasons (which differ among scribblers) as to why they
shouldn't be able to do so.  Since scientists and engineers have been
particularly successful in offering humans ways to improve their
material standard of living (which the epistemologically naïve call
"expanding knowledge" or if they are particularly benighted
"explaining things"), they are naturally deserving of particularly
vicious "epistemological critique".

OK, I was joking.  Mostly.
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict is adequate for now.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/E.html is a bit better.
And hey! What's that entry just a little below 'epistemology'?

> And in the midst of a recession with dubious outcome, whatever
> became of ECONOMICS  here on pkt?

Bush is already pushing for  big tax cuts for those most likely to
put them to good use.  What more could we want?   ;-)

Cheers,
Alan