==While I agree with you that the AP hierarchy “has implications” beyond science, we still need to recognize that science, qua science, is not “in the meaning business.”
Thanks for your reply, Betty Boop. I just wrote a long response that was deleted when I checked for spelling. I can’t describe my reaction to this travesty as anything other then demoralizing! I just can’t bring myself to write it all over again, so I will do my best summarize:
In my opinion science is all about meaning. Distant light photons do not mean “star” unless there is an intelligible sender and an intelligent receiver. An “apple” falling to the ground does not mean gravity, unless there is an intelligible sender and an intelligent receiver. The fact that these messages are intelligible presupposes meaning. Thus, when a scientist says this happened, or that happened, they are deciphering the meaning of the message. The message cannot be explained by the chemistry or physics of their brain, any more than it can be explained by the chemistry or physics of the sender. Thus, scientists must take the meaning that is conveyed by the sender, and the meaning that is understood by the receiver, as an axiom at the very foundation of what makes discovery possible. And yet, neither the chemistry nor the physics of this interchange explains the intelligibility of the message. The chemistry and physics involved are the medium, not the message. The fact that we (not just scientists) are constantly receiving intelligble messages from every aspect of the Universe (no matter how over our heads, and no matter how poorly understood) means that science is all about deciphering the meaning (and at least the intelligent design) of the sender, which presupposes the intelligence of the receiver. Thus, science is fundamentally about meaning. To deny this obvious fact is to deny science itself IMHO.
All the best—GGG
Indeed. That's why Shannon information theory draws such a clear distinction between the "content" (i.e., meaning) and the "conduit" (i.e., medium) of the message. Since science is not in the meaning business, all it has to go on is the medium. It's awesomely good there. But the fact still remains that scientific knowledge does not encompass the totality of human knowledge, or provide solutions to all human problems; let alone does it reach to wisdom.
So truly, I appreciate your frustration that science cannot, in principle, deliver all the answers of most vital concern to human beings.
Must run for now. Take-out just arrived!
Hope to speak with you again soon, GGG!
So true.. If an observable happens and no observer is there to see it, did it happen?..
A new twist to an old bromide..
More, if it was observed was anything missed in the observation?...
WHo can observe anything from all aspects?..
The arrogant may think they do..
The vain may be sure they do?..
and, the afraid may be afraid to admit they looked...
But the wise know they are pretty stupid..
For the more you know, the more you know of things you don't know..
Generating humility..
Observation is not a problem for the humble..
They are the true scientists.. satisfied with a piece of the puzzle(observation)..