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

From: "Robert Lagore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:27:02 -0700

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

I have no doubt that we are in relative agreement and if either my tone or
subject matter implied otherwise, I apologize. And because you have brought
up the possibility of my concerns being minor linguistic problems, I will
phrase this post as a request for clarification rather than a critique.

My use of the phrase "universal constant" was surely not limited to the
areas of mathematics and logic, as the problem of subjectivity must have
implied. There can hardly be any subjective value of my negative or
positive feelings toward the law of non-contradiction. Subjectivity, as I
understand it in this context, of necessity deals with things in the real
world (though I think the more precise philosophic term is "synthetic" of
the analytic-synthetic distinction). The necessity of treating such
"constants" as "universal" is, as I see it, is a pragmatic consideration
based upon our "experience" of the universe, or at least that little bit of
the universe that we have had contact with. I would still assert that
enumerative induction is the basis for such an extrapolation, and the
benefit of such a "leap" would be that we are able to construct reasonable
hypotheses about how the universe works. You are certainly correct to point
out that if our presuppositional views of the speed of light, etc. were to
be incorrect, then we would suffer the consequences of that error. However,
since the Logical Positivist problem (I hope I am not over-generalizing
here), we have moved away from a Verificationist approach to science, to a
view that is more indicative of Popper's Falsification approach. That is,
that we realize the problems with verifying any claim because of the
limited nature of our position, and so we opt for a view that tries to
create the best hypothesis given the available evidence, test it against
the data, and where that hypothesis is not falsified, we tentatively hold
to it as "true" until either more evidence is forthcoming or we find a flaw
in our hypothesis.

I guess the bottom line is that when you say that "astronomy as we now know
it is reduced to a faith assumption", it seems to be critiquing science in
the basis of what is true of all things in reality. It is possible that I
am reacting to the phrase "faith assumption". which in these discussions is
often used pejoritively. While we might think that such hypothetical
presuppositions are indicative of "faith assumptions", do you not think
that this is going too far? After all, we are not going to put our
"hypothesis" of light's speed being a constant 186,000 miles per second,
alongside other "faith assumptions" are we? The category of "faith
assumptions" seems to have quickely become too large and to ambiguous for
any real benefit, especially if such diverse items are both placed under
the heading of "faith".

Upon reading your last post, I am quite sure that I have jumped into your
discussion midstream, and so I wish to apologize if I have missed your
point or grabbed on to a point that really was not central to your primary
concern. Thanks for your time....:)

R.D. Lagore

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:10:28 -0600

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Thu, 18 Dec 1997 wrote:

[ ... ]

>subject matter implied otherwise, I apologize.

Since I knew we were talking about different things, I took no
offense. It's not as if you accused me of being a fundamentalist
or the like.

I just hope what follows does not prove too utterly irrelevant. :-)

And because you have brought
>positive feelings toward the law of non-contradiction.

Actually, there *is* some controversy over this (if I understand
you correctly). There is a mathematical method known as proof by
contradiction. And there is a school of mathematicians which does
not accept this method. They are trying to recreate mathematics
solely by direct proofs.

I must admit I don't understand their problem with it.

And, BTW, this *is* relevant to TC. The Colwell 70% "definition"
of a text-type can be shown to be inadequate because it leads
to contradictions.

>Subjectivity, as I
>the universe that we have had contact with.

I won't argue with that.

>I would still assert that
>hypotheses about how the universe works.

But induction is a techique which applies only if you can assign
a discrete positive integral value to each possible "instance."
It applies only to discrete, not continuous, phenomena. Thus it
cannot tell us anything about the (analog) universe.

I concede this is a nitpick. :-)

>You are certainly correct to point

I'm perfectly willing to do so. I'm *not* trying to argue that,
say, the speed of light is something different in the Andromeda
Galaxy. I made them "by way of concession," not because I think
these claims are true.

>often used pejoritively.

And which I'm perfectly capable of using pejoratively. In all honesty,
I usually *do* use it in such a manner. But in this case, where the
sciences have no other choice, it was not meant so.

>While we might think that such hypothetical

Agreed.

>concern. Thanks for your time....:)

It wasn't central to my primary concern. But I suppose it's best to
clear the air. :-)

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

                        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)