Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC

From: "Robert Lagore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:56:16 -0700

On December 18, 1997, Robert B. Waltz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Of course -- but this is true of almost every science. Astronomy
> jas to assume that the universe is uniform -- that is, that
> the universal constants are in fact universal (no evidence at all
> to support that theory!) and that stars take the same form everywhere.
> Biology, particularly evolutionary biology, has to assume that ancient
> life for the most part used the same energy processes as modern life.
> Cosmology has to make assumptions about the history of the universe
> when it can only examine the *present* universe.
> 
> I could go on (though I can't think of a science that begins with
> "D" :-). *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to
> reduce the assumptions, and test all things possible.
 
> And, let's face it, most of us (I include myself) are idiots. If you
> don't believe it, look at the people we keep electing to our respective
> governments. :-)

I agree with you completely on one point... that we are all idiots...<bg>,
but grant me the opportunity to be picky on one or two points and I hope
that I do not completely demonstrate the fact that I am fully capable of
being just as much an idiot as most others.

I would take issue with your claim that "universal constances" being "in
fact universal" is not supported by any evidence at all. In case you were
not over generalizing for effect, might I point out that enumerative
induction is one of the most common forms of evidence we appeal to. I would
grant you that as evidence it is not always conclusive, but in the absence
of such conclusive evidence, we appeal to "universal" (that is in all of
our known experience) constants. I hope that those who use the phrase
"universal constant" are not implying their own deity, which is of course
what such an absolutely literal interpretation of the phrase would require.
It is my understanding that when we refer to "universal constants", we are
referring to that which is the case for all (or most) of human experience.
David Hume used the phrase "a firm and unalterable experience", and while
this has been interpreted literally as well, I wonder if we might be more
realistic with such phrases and admit both our finitude and the "apparent"
universality of human experience with regards to certain phenomena.

Secondly, the fact that "all sciences make assumptions" would seem to be a
"no brainer" in that I cannot conceive of too much that does not require
certain assumptions. As one logician stated, "There are some forms of
circular reasoning that are more vicious than others, and some forms that
are necessary for reasoning to take place at all!" The destructive nature
of circularity would seem to be most dangerous when assumptions are ignored
or denied in the attempt to capture that elusive creature - "total
objectivity". I for one, believe that "total objectivity" should be
considered as part of the same category of things as unicorns and "The
Great Pumpkin" since we always seem to include a bit of ourselves in our
interpretation. That being said, I do not think that necessitates a
completely relativistic approach. While "total objectivity" would seem to
be out of reach, this does not mean that "objectivity" is out of reach. And
I wonder if "objectivity" is not the responsibility of, not merely
individuals who strive to be objective, but of the academic community that
realizes its role as providing the means to greater objectivity. The
greatest problem for the community in this instance is of course being
caught up in our own "zeitgeist", thinking that we have evolved to the
point of not needing to learn from the past. I suggest that as an academic
community, we must seriously return to the past so as to fulfill our
responsibility as a community striving for objectivity. Bernard of Chartes
wisely said, "We are as dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants; and if
we can see any further than our own noses, it is because they have lent us
their stature."  

What does this mean for the "science of interpretation"? First, I suggest
that your advice to minimize our assumptions be followed. The principle of
parsimony in the area of presuppositions would seem to require no
evidential support because it seems to me to be an obvious advantage in our
theorizing. Second, at the same time, we must be honest enough (and
courageous enough) to face and clearly state the presuppositions that we
believe we reason and theorize upon. Hopefully this means that our
interactions (or disagreements) with others will centered on the most
critical points of our interpretations. It hardly seems advantageous to
debate peripheral points when there are such foundational differences in
how and what evidence we consider relevant. Third, in clearly stating our
presuppositions, I hope that as an academic community, we might better
serve each other by providing critical evaluations that really address the
pertinent issues.

Well that was longer than I intended. It must be obvious that while I talk
about Occam's Razor, I am not always consistent in using it.

R.D. Lagore

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:55:38 -0600

>> when it can only examine the *present* universe.

[ ... ]

>fact universal" is not supported by any evidence at all.

As your following sentences prove, we do not mean the same thing by
"universal constants." I was not speaking of the rules of mathematics
and logic. Such laws are not part of reality, and would exist even
if the universe didn't. They are simply *methods.*

When I referred to "universal constants," I was referring to such
things as the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational
constant. Physical scientists universally treat these as constant --
but while we have never seen any variation in them on earth,
we don't *know* what they are in intergalactic space. And any change
in the values of either of those constants, be it noted, would
completely understand our understanding of (for instance) the
red shift, in turn affecting the age of the universe, etc.

Thus, astronomy as we now know it is reduced to a "faith assumption"
(admittedly backed by every bit of evidence available) that certain
physical properties of the universe are the same throughout the
universe.

Since we were talking about different things, I think I can
skip over replying to the rest. We were in closer agreement
than you thought. (I think. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)