HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:39:35 EDT
 <1993Jan10.113932.605@news.wesleyan.edu> <1993Jan10.234752.4562@news.eng.convex.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: cash@convex.com's message of Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:47:52 GMTLines: 33

In <1993Jan10.234752.4562@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com writes:
> Ah, but do you ask them why they want to get a graduate degree in
> philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
> include making a living as a philosopher.
 
Well, even if I forget to give that particular speech, the APA won't.  It still
asks graduate departments to send to all applicants that dreary & discouraging
form letter that says, roughly, "You think you're gonna get a JOB in
philosophy?  HA Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahaha......"  So if a student applies to
10 schools, 10 copies of that letter show up.  Blah!  I'm surprised ANYONE ever
decides to go to grad school in philosophy.

  For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
> your humble correspondent). 

Well, Peter, let me assure you that those of you living such "lesser lives,
toiling among the masses" probably have a helluva easier time paying off your
student loans.  :-)

Just for comparison on that point, the esteemed institution at which I earn my
rent payments pays me (mid-range assistant prof) $8000/year less than I would
earn if I were an elementary school teacher in this state.  Or rather, that's
how much it WOULD be paying me if I weren't on only 3/4 salary this year (a
move VERY strongly recommended by my dept chair in order to "buy myself some
writing time" in order to bolster my publications so that I don't "perish" when
my publish-or-perish day o' reckoning arrives).  %^O


------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:08:07 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: "Mass" seems to be holding its own.

-*----
In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
>> I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
>> 'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
>> observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
>> and have been developed. 
>>
>> Btw, "mass of an object"  means "difficulty to move it",

In article <C0qw25.134@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> Or perhaps it means "difficulty to stop it from moving".  Or perhaps it
> means "difficulty in changing its direction".  What it *means* is a feature
> of the *laws* in which 'mass' appears -- laws in which 'force', 'energy',
> 'charge', etc. also appear.

This objection does not damage the terminology-as-shorthand
thesis.  Suppose that "mass" initially means any or all of these
things.  Gary Merrill can complain that this reflects a theory of
identity, but Schiller can respond that it merely reflects a
failure to disambiguate because observation has not required it.
The term "mass" then runs the risk of being ambiguous, but so do
most terms.  At the point when it is needed (if ever), physicists
can refine their terminology and speak of "stopping mass,"
"starting mass," and "turning mass." (Physicists already
distinguish inertial mass from gravitational mass, and Gary
Merrill may rightly point out that this is because our theories
embed the isotropy of the universe with respect to physical law
at a more basic level than the equivalence of gravitational force
and acceleration.  This strikes me as a good example that *some*
distinctions are theory laden.)

It is undoubtedly the case that words that refer to observations
are potentially ambiguous, even such simple terms as "cat" or
"rug." (Thank you, Wittgenstein.)  It strikes me as quite a leap
from there to the notion that such terms are theory laden in any
significant sense.  When ambiguities arise, they are easily
resolved by introducing new terms that express finer
distinctions. 

> ...  I wonder this:  Are you in fact familiar with the vast 
> literature in this area while you choose to reject the well
> known criticisms and counterexamples to your views for some
> rational reason?  Or are you ignorant of this literature and
> simply clinging to your own view based on your "intuition" of 
> how things are?

Perhaps Schiller is waiting for someone who is "familiar with the
vast literature" to give a good and interesting criticism before
he delves into it.  After all, a "vast literature" has little to
recommend it if those who read it, study it, and recommend it are
not made the wiser thereby.  (Consider: are you led to reading
Rand's essays from the babblings of Objectivists?)

Russell
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:06:55 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1993Jan10.203936.607@news.wesleyan.edu>, by RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg):
> In <1993Jan10.234752.4562@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com writes:



>>   For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
>> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
>> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
>> your humble correspondent). 
> 
> Well, Peter, let me assure you that those of you living such "lesser lives,
> toiling among the masses" probably have a helluva easier time paying off your
> student loans.  :-)


Yeah.  Hey Peter, who said being a philosopher was making a living??  ;-)

>Just for comparison on that point, the esteemed institution at which I earn my
> rent payments pays me (mid-range assistant prof) $8000/year less than I would
> earn if I were an elementary school teacher in this state.  Or rather, that's


And Ruth: Wow.  You make *that* much?  ;-) ( Don't pay any attention
to me today.  I'm just trying to get this out of my system now.  In
about 2 hours we have the president of the Wisconsin System Board of
Regents coming to campus to, ahem, answer questions.  I have a few
that would probably cost me tenure, but the Dean's insisting I go
anyways.  I wonder if I'll be able to restrain myself...  Hey Peter,
what do you know about job opportunities in the real world?  Maybe I
should light candles to the spirit of Thales...)


Whew, that's a little better. 

For now, anyways, I remain,
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Philosophy before science ? (was : Seman
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:33:25 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
>  Science *is* the study of basic facts, ....  
   (science, basic-facts)  
  
>  ..time, space, matter, interactions, motion, change. All of these are   
>  basic facts.   
   (basic-facts)  
  
>  Science is to be judged by facts...  
   (science, facts)  
  
However My Son!  
'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and when  
you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into the 
thin air....it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond :-)  
  
as you say, fortunately, the middle-ages are over with all their bogeys called
- scientific-facts...:-)..now we can live happily here-after without clinging 
to some theories as if they were revealed words of the God...and also  
we don't confuse the revealed words of the God with scientific-facts....  
:-)....happy ending....:-)  
  
> Christoph Schiller                         
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c)
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : Seman
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:15:56 GMT

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

[ discussion deleted ]

>While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
>uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
>a bit simplistic.  For example, 

[ ...]

>-- 
>Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm


To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a 
typical example of, well, ... arrgogance ! 
A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
evidence for false. 

If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.
(Ether ? No ether !  Energy non-conservation ? No, a neutrino !
 Sky is dark at night ? Universe is finite ! etc.)

		Cheers

				Christoph Schiller
From: PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Colors, Schemes, Theories
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:37:29 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Christopher Green:

> (Note that many cultures do not have the same color scheme as us.)

I would like to know what this means.

Does it mean that some languages give names to different colors
from the ones we distinguish with names? That seems an
unremarkable fact.

Does it mean that people in some cultures make significantly
different similarity judgments between colors from the ones
we make? I would like to know the evidence for this.

C.L. Hardin reports the opposite. He reports that experimental
data show that (1) infants have a "hue space" that is neatly
divided into four similarity classes centered upon the four
unique hues; (2) the Dani people of New Guinea, who have no
words for abstract chromatic hues, recognize which ones are
the unique hues anyway. (Reference and quotations available
upon request.)

What is a color scheme?

Almost as an aside at this point, let me add that I do not quite
see the relevance of the theory-laden/pure observation distinction
to the question of scientific realism. Suppose, that is, stipulate,
that all observations are theory-laden. How would this show that
there is no such thing as a true (in the sense of, correctly
describing the world) theory? How would it show that theoretic
terms have no referents?

Jamie
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:08:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.113932.605@news.wesleyan.edu>, 
RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>In <C0M726.Jo7@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>
>> >[Rowat writes]
>> >  I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
>> >interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
>> >(and epistemology in general).  For this reason I am looking for
>> >schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
>>departments which specialize in philosophical underpinnings of psychology, and
>epistemology in general.
>
>TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
>
>Here's what I suggest to my students who are looking for philosophy graduate
>programs, or even undergraduate programs to which they might transfer:
>
>1. What readings or lectures have piqued your interest?  Who wrote them?  Whose
>work were they discussing?  Make note of the AUTHORS who are involved in
>writing about the philosophical subjects that interest you.

SG	I would not encourage students to study falsehoods and evil but, 
instead, I would direct them to truth and morality. Ginzberg obviously likes 
Nietzche's desire to go "beyond good and evil." This is starting to have the 
same effect in the US as it did earlier in Germany. As Objectivist Leonard 
Peikoff observes in _The Ominous Parallels_, "The moderns reject reason 
'disinterestedly,' with no explicit idea of anything to put in its place, no 
alternative means of knowledge, no formal dogma to preserve or protect." 
	Sophistry is not wisdom.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:29:12 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

By the way, you haven't made any comment on the quotation on quarks
I posted earlier concerning how it either is compatible or incompatible
your view of fact and theory.  Nor have you made a guess as to the
source of the quotation.  Care to try for both of these?

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:25:17 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:

|> Obviously I embrace the idea that no theory is necessary. (This is to
|> make you angry a little more ... :-) The historical account even prooves

Not at *all* angry, my dear sir.  Just more and more amused.  And *greatly*
puzzled that someone who calls himself a "scientist" can so uncritically
embrace such an inadequate view.

|> this to be so. 
|> Alpha particles have been discovered, not invented. The term "discovery"
|> expresses the fact that the observation was *unexpected*, in other words,
|> that there was *no* theory beforehand. They were found by serendipity.
|> 
|> Your position amounts to the denial that discoveries are possible. As a
|> scientist, I disagree completely. The question if such a thing as a "discovery"
|> is possible or not is a deep one, but science takes the clear stand that it is.
|> I am always interested to hear from people who deny the existence of the
|> possibility of discoveries.  But in my experience, and in that of the people I
|> see, "discovery" has a real meaning, independent of theory.

The points at dispute are *quite* independent of the issues involved in
the debate over a realist or anti-realist interpretation of scientific
theories.  Again, you have mised the point and attributed to me a position
I do not hold.

|> I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
|> 'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
|> observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
|> and have been developed. 

Oh dear.  This will not do.  It will not do at all.  It has not done for
about 50 years now.

|> Btw, "mass of an object"  means "difficulty to move it",

Or perhaps it means "difficulty to stop it from moving".  Or perhaps it
means "difficulty in changing its direction".  What it *means* is a feature
of the *laws* in which 'mass' appears -- laws in which 'force', 'energy',
'charge', etc. also appear.

|> "charge of an object" means "strength with which it moves when approached 
|> by a stick which was previously stroken by a cat fur". 
|> These *are* shorthand for observations.
|> 
|> So let me sum with a challenge : can you give a concept in physics which 
|> is NOT a shorthand for observations ?

Sure.  Pick any one.  That's the example.  I wonder this:  Are you in fact
familiar with the vast literature in this area while you choose to reject
the well known criticisms and counterexamples to your views for some
rational reason?  Or are you ignorant of this literature and simply clinging
to your own view based on your "intuition" of how things are?


-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4718 sci.math:17920
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.math
Subject: Re: Those funny secret old words
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:15:22 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1hsep4INN266@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
>>From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
> 
>>    SG         Zeleny has perfected the argumentum ad loudmouth.
> 
> Why, yes, he has, actually! I was going to commend him for that myself,
> but he has been too modest to accept my commendations in the past.
> 
> I wonder if Grossman actually knows what "ad" means, or if he
> only *mistakenly* called himself a loudmouth?

Apparently you don't know what it means either, unless you're
kidding...<:-)

-Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus et
opinions are my own      | insipientibus debitor sum
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : S
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:47:32 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> |> However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the   
> |> results of observation.  
  
What facts ? What observations ?  
An observation is conducted according to a theory, in the first place...  
  
> I don't have much of a clue what "prescribed" means here.  Perhaps  
> what is meant is that the range of "possible facts" or the range  
> of "descriptions of facts" is limited by theory.  That wouldn't be  
> *so* bad a claim.  
>   
> |> For example, electrons were there much before quantum mechanics  
  
'electrons were there' ?! according to what theory ?  
  
[rest is deleted]  
  
> A great deal of  
> *theory* needs to come into play in order to describe how an electron  
> is observed (if indeed we want to say that this is possible) or  
> what "observed" *means* when applied to electrons.  
  
exactly..  
  
> Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c)
Subject: Colours - which theory before observation ?
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:35:28 GMT

Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:

>>Red is a concept formed by children
>>before they are six months old, and it gives a name to certain class 
>>of colours. When a child says: "it is red", it just says, "it has a similar
>>look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call red".
>>The statement "It is red" therefore just compares different observations.
>>Not much of theory there.
>>
>>			Christoph Schiller

>"gives a name to a certain class of colors"?  That is a thoroughly
>theory-laden assertion.  

No. It is an observation of child psychology, that children do this in the first
months of their life. But that children who do not speak, or just learn to
speak, use other names than red, prehaps "djfghgf", to express the concept, is
not a contradiction. They still have the concept, just the name is different.
It is an observation of child psychology that the concept of colour is formed by
the child itself, not by taking over any "theory" from adults. (Btw, which 
"theory" would that be ?)

>    My 2-year-old uses "green" as a term of
>approbation (at least, that's the closest I can figure it).  He does not
>have the technique of using color words to refer to what we adult language
>users think of as colors.  So it is not "looks" he is comparing.  But he *is*
>using linguistic utterances to express his comparison of observations. 
>Only when he gains some sophistication will adults be able to straighten
>out his conceptual scheme by explaining some theoretical considerations
>about color-terms and what kind of observations are relevant to them.
>    He may not yet have an explicit theory (or even an explicit concept) but
>in order to interact with him you have to have theories and concepts, and
>you have to be able to transmit them to him.  His (socially correct)
>observations *will* be theory-laden.

Your son probably is using the *word* "green" for something else than for what
adults call green colour. What he will learn through social interactions,
is to use the standard word instead of his own word. But the concept remains
the same. Transmitting a name does not mean transmitting a theory.


			Christoph Schiller


P.S. Another possibility :  is your child colour-blind ?



Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Philosophy causes science
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:37:19 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.

The important issue of the philosophy-science relation has narrowed to the 
theory-observation relation. Yet, curiously enough, philosophical issues are 
being discussed because the proper way to understand science always widens to 
philosophy. One may use Aristotle, the philosophical inventor or discoverer of 
science, or Wittgenstein, the destroyer of science. Science is the application 
of philosophical knowledge such as reality, order, identity, entity, event, 
causality, condition, occasion, experience, logic, science, system, hypothesis, 
deduction, induction, proof, truth. falsity, experiment. The rational Greeks 
invented science and modern nihilists are destroying it. Those who refuse to 
use a philosophical perspective on science don't even know its happening. 
	One does not observe "description" in a lab. One observes entities (or, 
if you must, events) which, then, one wants to describe. But where did 
"description" (or any other philosphical fact) come from???
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech