From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Bad Dream
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:34:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct3.105750.43545@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>Subject: Re: The Cosmological Bad Dream
>Date: 3 Oct 92 10:57:50 CDT

>In article <qk42RB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, snodgras@netlink.cts.com (John Snodgrass) writes:
>> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>> 
>>> I'm a linguist, and though you might think linguistics has little
>>> relevance to the issue you raised, I think it does.  The problem in
>>> the public's perception of cosmology is that the public takes
>>> what scientists say about the universe as a set of *assertions*
>>> while the speech act that cosmologists are actually performing is
>>> that of *assumption* or *working assumption.*  The difference is
>>> important.

>>       The new physics is long past questions of working assumptions,
>> when generations of scientists have come and gone utilizing those same
>> assumptions. Certain principles become so ingrained they are taken
>> as true, and if you argue that they are just assumptions you will
>> provoke some heated debate -- even amongst philosophers -- as Kuhn
>> and others have shown. There is a strong desire to see science as a
>> window on absolute truth at any given time, with the modest admission
>> that the window might not be perfectly transparent. This is 
>> understandable amongst lab techs, but unfortunately is prevalent
>> on all levels. As many people are beginning to realize, there is
>> a lot to be gained from a study of the sociology of science, not to
>> mention the linguistics.

>     I wonder if I might go into this a little further and ask some
>questions.
>     Actually, Speech Act theory *is* philosophy, since it's from
>Austin.  His basic insight was that not everything is an assertion. 
>The theory initiated by him and developed by Searle and others
>posits felicity conditions for various speech acts: complaining,
>insulting, questioning, etc. and of course including asserting. 
>The way you support the claim that a given set of felicity
>conditions are correct for a given speech act is by seeing what
>happens when they are violated: what happens is that the speaker is
>judged by the speech community to be irrational (or bizarre, or
>ignorant of how the language is used, or whatever).
>     One of the conditions for a felicitous *assertion* is that the
>speaker have evidence for its truth at the time of utterance. 
>Since a testable, non-obvious and therefore non-trivial scientific
>hypothesis is supported or falsified or revised for years after it
>is stated, it seems to me that a scientific hypothesis cannot be an
>assertion.  This works out empirically: if the hearer of an
>assertion later discovers a single counter-example, (s)he concludes
>that the assertion was false.  A single counter-example rarely
>falsifies a scientific hypothesis, but rather leads to its
>revision; you keep a good theory (a fortiori if it's the only
>theory you have) in the face of many apparent counter-examples.
>     If some present-day scientists are as you suggest treating
>hypotheses and working assumptions as assertions, then they must be
>using language in a special way.  What is very puzzling is why the
>expected bizarreness-reaction of hearers is not much in evidence. 
>Thousands of people watch TV programs which seem to perform such
>assertions as "The following is what occurred during the first
>three minutes of the existence of the universe" and don't bat an
>eye.  This must be part of the sociological factor you mentioned.
>-- 
>********************************** +.............................+
>*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
>*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
>*       -God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
>********************************** +.............................+


Can scientists qua scientists call any theory "well-confirmed" or "true"?
Can a scientist say "It is true that p" where p is some scientific statement 
like "The sun is 93 million miles from earth" or "Metals expand when 
heated" ? Would not such remarks be epistemological and not scientific? 

Just wondering what a Searlian speech-act theorist would say about that.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:3594 sci.math:12918 sci.physics:16184 sci.astro:10527