Replies

Dear Alamo-Girl, I’m way behind in my replies here, and may never catch up [just swamped at work, and also in my “moonlighting” activities, etc.]. I had some thoughts about StJacques’ comments about nominalism and whether some of our correspondents on this thread think and reply in this manner. That is, “are nominalists.” But I don’t think we’ve quite achieved clarity re: the meaning of nominalism yet.

As usual, I go straight to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language for definitions: Nominalism is “the view which regards universals or abstract concepts as mere names without any corresponding reality.”

Which would instantly take geometry, algorithms, formulae of every description (e.g., even culinary recipes), universal laws, logic, human languages, scientific theories, etc., etc., right “off the table” — not to mention soul and spirit. Which to me is not an inviting prospect, assuming we-all are the least bit interested in studying Nature, or the universe, which seemingly includes “objects” of this kind.

The problem is, they are not tangible objects, such that you could physically measure. Yet science has no method and no language without these intangible objects.

So all I’ve got to say is, it doesn’t “pay” to be a nominalist. :^)

This recalls Tegmark’s observations respecting the “bird’s-eye” view, and the “frog’s view” — the bird hanging outside the 4D spacetime block that conditions human perception and explanation, and the frog moving along his path in 4D spacetime; and how Tegmark thinks this contrast is the same that obtains between Plato and Aristotle respectively, both of whom had valid approaches and methods to deal with the problem of revealing the laws of the Cosmos. Clearly, Plato was no nominalist; he is said to be the founder of philosophical realism. Aristotle, of course, was no nominalist either: He is often thought of as the first genuine scientist. Within that framework, one would have to place the nominalist as “off the scale” altogether: For in all probability, neither Plato nor Aristotle could give him hospitality: For the nominalist has no way to account for nor explain the empirical reality of his own existence and experience. And the reason for this is: He has detached his thinking from his experience. This strikes me as being a very dangerous procedure.

FWIW. Must get back to work. Meanwhile, I’m lurking away whenever I can, very much enjoying your conversations with js1138, StJacques, PatrickHenry, Nebullis. I’ll jump back in as soon as I can.

Thank you so much for your brilliant posts, A-G! Clearly, you are no nominalist.

This is a response to betty's #657.

I've been away for over a week again as I have been out of town doing some contract work, so I apologize for the tardiness of my response.

On Nominalism, let me be clear. There is a difference between calling someone a "Nominalist" and calling an argument a "Nominalist" argument. I have never called Alamo-Girl or anyone else a Nominalist, though I have tried to pin Doctor Stochastic down on the "Universal Objective Truth vs. Nominalist" perspective without success. :-)

I repeat without reservation that Intelligent Design proposes a Nominalist argument when it postulates by definition, without proposing any scientific test which can disprove it, that there is a basic level of complexity in life that is "irreducible" and can only be the result of the work of an "Intelligent Designer." This is truth by definition, which makes it a Nominalist argument.

I am disappointed to see that my raising of the issue of Nominalism has been taken as a personal attack rather than engendering the response I really wished to see, which is an answer to the question as to how individuals such as betty and Alamo-Girl, who I clearly recognize are not Nominalists, could attach themselves to a blatantly Nominalist argument such as that proposed by Intelligent Design. I regard this as an intellectual inconsistency, since they clearly believe in universal truths.