"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".

The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

For a good discussion of this.

The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.

This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...help/mach1.htm


Contrasts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
.. .

"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

Hopefully this clarifies the statement.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane" wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".

The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

For a good discussion of this.

The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.

This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...help/mach1.htm


Contrasts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
.. .

"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

Hopefully this clarifies the statement.

Paul Stowe


You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above", you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

And of course Bill's stuff is a mess:
"For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.".

Essentially he says that "one can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over
LET [] - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry which modern
physics has shown is very important." He is treating "modern physics" as
distinct from "science".

In my opening I said to him
"Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, [i] may not get into a prolonged exchange.". Now I say to you that
perhaps it should be clear to me that you do not wish to be clear.

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".

The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

For a good discussion of this.

The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.

This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...help/mach1.htm


Contrasts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
.. .

"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

Hopefully this clarifies the statement.

Paul Stowe


You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.

As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:
"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".

You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative causal
mechanistic philosophy".

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further,
as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be
discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to
understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".

The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

For a good discussion of this.

The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.

This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...help/mach1.htm


Contrasts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
.. .

"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

Hopefully this clarifies the statement.

Paul Stowe


You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may
not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.

As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated
in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:

Correction: So, perhaps if I take just the principle, we may be able to
proceed:

"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".

You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative
causal
mechanistic philosophy".


This may be of interest to you, if you are preparing a supportive argument
to your statement above:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Much as Post-modernism is set out as finding the Scientific Realism concepts
"knowledge, unobservables (and observables), empirical, truth" to be
problematical, so do I.

However, unlike the "fixing up" "underdetermination argument" on "The
Empiricist Challenge",
"we will [n]ever have any evidence that ["total sciences"] embodies
knowledge of unobservables", the authors of the essay seem to fall back on
the concepts "knowledge and observerables" and also include "evidence". I do
not feature these concepts, nor "truth", preferring the principle
"coherence, coherence and coherence according to whatever criteria one
fancies". So, it seems to me that Effectuationism is a quite distinct
model - as I already implied he
...
"[Lame] is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy []".

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:46:51 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane"
wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to
simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further,
as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our
current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be
discerned.
We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame
them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the
rocesses
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given
sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to
understand.

Still rather vague.

Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.


For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".

The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.

See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

For a good discussion of this.

The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.

This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...help/mach1.htm


Contrasts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
.. .

"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

Hopefully this clarifies the statement.

Paul Stowe


You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above",
you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to
my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may
not
be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for
greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."

My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.

As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated
in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:

Correction: So, perhaps if I take just the principle, we may be able to
proceed:

"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".

You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative
causal
mechanistic philosophy".


This may be of interest to you, if you are preparing a supportive argument
to your statement above:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Much as Post-modernism is set out as finding the Scientific Realism concepts
"knowledge, unobservables (and observables), empirical, truth" to be
problematical, so do I.

However, unlike the "fixing up" "underdetermination argument" on "The
Empiricist Challenge",
"we will [n]ever have any evidence that ["total sciences"] embodies
knowledge of unobservables", the authors of the essay seem to fall back on
the concepts "knowledge and observerables" and also include "evidence". I do
not feature these concepts, nor "truth", preferring the principle
"coherence, coherence and coherence according to whatever criteria one
fancies". So, it seems to me that Effectuationism is a quite distinct
model - as I already implied he
...
"[Lame] is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy []".


I should have added, as it is appropriate to the context, that finding
short-comings of systems is one thing, going on and producing an alternative
system such as "Effectuationism" (both the philosophy model and the physics
navigation model, etc.) is quite another.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com