Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Nebullis, I'm not suggesting that hypotheses can be formulated by robots. As thinking, feeling people, we bring to the table what we bring to the table: our knowledge, our imagination. Not only is this perfectly legitimate, it is absolutely unavoidable.
But I do maintain that there is one branch of philosophy which is indispensible to science, as to all other knowledge domains; and that without it, science does not make progress.
And that is epistemology: the "science" of how we know, what we know, and how we know it. It keeps the "lens of the mind" clear, and keeps our desire in line; i.e., it helps us prevent the improper interjection of our personal preferences from shaping outcomes, not all of which may be falsified by empirical tests. We may persist in interpreting the experimental results in line with our own conscious or unconscious preferences. This is probably less likely in physics than in, say, the biological sciences, which are far more subject to "interpretation" than the former because they intimately deal with the nature of man (among other things). That is, having a stake in the game (to to speak), it is easier for "subjective" elements to intrude and possibly skew our results.
I want to be persuaded, at the end of the day, that the description of the world that I am trying to formulate is, in fact, a description of the world, and not just a description of me and my desire....
Does that make any sense at all?
apodictic
Apodeictic \Ap"o*deic"tic\, Apodictic \Ap`o*dic"tic\,Apodeictical \Ap`o*deic"tic*al\, Apodictical \Ap`o*dic"tic*al\, a. [L. apodicticus, Gr. ?, fr. ? to point out, to show by argument; ? from + ? to show.] Self-evident; intuitively true; evident beyond contradiction. --Brougham. Sir Wm. Hamilton.
epideictic
\Ep`i*deic"tic\, a. [Gr. ?, fr. ? to show forth, display; 'epi` + ? to show. Cf. Epidictic.] Serving to show forth, explain, or exhibit; -- applied by the Greeks to a kind of oratory, which, by full amplification, seeks to persuade.
therefore: apodeictic ~= beyond testing; epideictic ~= testible (about explanation) ...eh?
Maybe it would simplify things a bit if we understand the apodictic as that type of reason that relies on direct reference to specific objects; i.e., the type of reason used in empirical tests. Epidictic reasoning proceeds, not by direct reference, but by inference from larger contexts; i.e., the contexts in which a multiplicity of "objects" exist.
This is your "relationality" we're speaking of here, brother Arlen!
I'm going "hmm...."
According to these definitions, though, apodictic is about virtually unquestionable and inscrutable truth, while epidictic is about demonstrable truth -- and demonstration is that which a scientist definitively does.
Hello again, unspun! The reason that the apodictic is about "unquestionable and inscrutible truth" (so to speak -- I'll quibble over the words "inscrutible" and maybe even "truth" here, unless it comes with a small-T) is because it is subject to direct falsification tests. It can be experimentally validated, and experimentally confirmed by anyone replicating the experiment. The same result would be there for any investigator performing the same experiment. It is "objective" in this sense.
The epidictic, on the other hand, deals with questions of truth that cannot be experimentally demonstrated simply because the "subject" of its inquiry in not susceptible to "objectization." That is, it is not an "object" in the sense of a physical entity as entertained by the mind. But it asserts that something is "there," and then points it out. Its "proof" is not to be had via experimental validation/falsification. Its method is, as you note, persuasion -- by asking the listener to "look at" what is being pointed out to him, and then to consult his own knowledge and experience for validation of what is seen -- or not, as the case may be.
Socrates' method of argument with the Sophists was mainly epideixis. And certainly he was interested in questions of Truth -- truths far larger than can possibly be tested by a scientific experiment (apodeixis).
The epidictic, on the other hand, deals with questions of truth that cannot be experimentally demonstrated simply because the "subject" of its inquiry in not susceptible to "objectization." That is, it is not an "object" in the sense of a physical entity as entertained by the mind. But it asserts that something is "there," and then points it out. Its "proof" is not to be had via experimental validation/falsification. Its method is, as you note, persuasion -- by asking the listener to "look at" what is being pointed out to him, and then to consult his own knowledge and experience for validation of what is seen -- or not, as the case may be.
epidictic \Ep`i*dic"tic\, Epidictical \Ep`i*dic"tic*al\, a. [L. epidictius. See Epideictic.] Serving to explain; demonstrative.
It's possible, Brother A. But my source is at home. (E. Voegelin) I'll check tonight and get back to you!
Here's the definition of apodictic given at the Eric Voegelin Study Page: "Certain or necessary. Used to refer to knowledge of what must be, as compared with what can be (and may even be)." (No definition for epidictic given at this site, but it may be inferred from the second clause of the given definition.)
Assuming I'm not wrong about this, I think the complication stems from the fact that we no longer think like the classical Greeks.
Brother Arlen, they both "demonstrate." The issue is by what method of reason.
We need to get a hold of cornelis right about now. If anybody can "referee" our little dispute, it would be he.
I understand what you are saying.
Epistemiology is where the statisticians come in. In the words of Deborah Mayo, we learn about the world by being shrewd inquisitors of error. Scientists are by no means a monolithic group that uses the same techniques for all questions. Methodology changes dynamically, is shared, revised, updated, improved, and discarded. And the power, in this case, lies with the individual mind that does science and not with an epistemiologist who directs how science should be done. As far as "preventing personal preferences from shaping outcomes", that's a matter of intellectual honesty. And physicists are just as dishonest as biologists. Peers, when they can spare time from their own dishonest research try to keep the rest of us honest, and with time, corroboration of findings will pick out the weak and wrong results. But even that is not always sound.
Wow! What a dismal state of affairs!
Please take a look at my tag line....
Thanks for writing, Nebullis.
Perhaps you don't see the humor in that. We are, afterall, human. An absurdity, I'm sure.
Berkeley Lab Physicist Challenges Speed of Gravity Claim
UCI biologist proposes trimming some branches from the human evolutionary tree
I'm afraid my sense of humor is wearing a little thin these days, Nebullis, what with all the "cultural cacaphony" incessantly going on in the background.... This is not a good thing -- to laugh, after all, is to be human!
Now that you point it out, I see the joke is actually pretty funny, as farce. Thanks!
Oh, I completely agree with you there!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.