Barry, Jon, and Gary, (01)
BS> If we have a sentence in a biology textbook, say 'blood cells
> are non-nucleated', then is this about cells in reality (as I,
> and I guess common sense, would assume) or about cells in the
> biology model? (02)
JA> If by "about" we mean something like "applies to" or "true of",
> is there any harm in saying that the sentences are about both? (03)
GBC> I also agree with the way that John spoke about "every science"
> having "data, theories, paradigms, models, methodologies, and
> vocabulary...developed together." I may be thinking of all of these
> together when I write a statement in a textbook or article. (04)
In any empirical subject, whether studied by "common sense" means
(i.e., unaided sense organs) or by "scientific methods" (i.e.,
sense organs enhanced by instrumentation and experimental methods),
the predictions are (05)
(a) always about the subject matter (i.e., some aspect of reality), (06)
(b) but derived by means of models, paradigms, and methodologies, (07)
(c) and inevitably fallible, but more or less dependable depending
on the similarity of the new case with the range of previously
observed and analyzed cases. (08)
In short, the statement is *about* reality, but derived by *means*
of models, and with an estimated certainty or probability that
depends on the available data and the depth of analysis. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|