John Sowa wrote: (01)
>As a realist, I believe that there is a reality that is independent of
how we may think about it. But >as a fallibilist, I also believe (02)
>1. It is very difficult to get a precise characterization of that
reality. (03)
>2. Many theories, formal and informal, that people have discovered
>have a great deal of truth in them. They are sufficiently good
>that people are willing to stake their lives on their predictions. (04)
>3. But it is impossible to determine whether any theory that anybody
>has ever proposed is exactly true to the extent that no further
>correction is necessary.
>4. Science and engineering have abundantly demonstrated that theories
> that are known to be false, but also known to be approximately
> true to a very high degree (such as Newtonian mechanics) can be
>extremely useful for practical applications. (05)
I think that support this position comes out of the biological &
biomedical realm where we are faced with a reality that included many
contingent events. Most of biology makes sense only through an
evolutionary perspective involving selection. What reproduces is
affected by geological events, population interactions etc. The
resulting biological reality can't be understood without understanding
these and we have only an approximate knowledge of this. (06)
In CONTINGENCY IN BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH Robert and Mark Shulman discuss
the disrupting consequences of contingent events which
"threaten our ability to find causal relations. How does so-called
"hard" science deal with the decisive influence of chance, whose
mechanisms are unknown and unknowable and whose history cannot be
evaluated?" (07)
Their field is biophysical chemistry - the place that biochemical
reactions occupy in overall functions of the human organism. Over the
past 30 years we have understood certain biochemical things that can
expressed in terms of the laws of physics. For example, biochemical
pathways in vivo in bacteria, animals and humans which depend upon the (08)
"old fashioned physics of quantum mechanics, spectroscopy and
thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics has been a useful biological application of physical
laws, well
established in the study of normal and abnormal human physiology. Before
considering
different examples of our studies we must emphasize that our reliance
upon physical
laws, with their most reliable causal interpretations, is itself a
starting point dedicated to minimalizing contingency. Very few
biological systems and even fewer experimental methodologies can provide
such information, so that this choice of method has placed our research
in the methodological camp. This choice differs from the majority of
biophysical or biochemical studies in which the problems are selected by
worldly significance of the questions, and methodological rigor in
reaching an answer is sacrificed. A well publicized example of the
approach we have not taken is offered by genomics in which the DNA
sequence is confidently predicted to explain all biological phenomena.
However the answers are unavailable since they await the resolution the
thorny mechanisms of genetic determinism. The strengths of physics, that
have guided our most method-driven studies have minimized contingency,
they do not eliminate it, but they locate it and limit its
consequences." (09)
They then go on to discuss two cases of how (010)
"biophysical research proceeds until it runs head long into unyielding
contingent events. The first example, a study of diabetes, illustrates
the management of contingency in a well-defined medical question."... we
showed how dietary protocols and exercise could restore normal glucose
storage rates by normalizing this particular step. However here we came
to the limits of causality. In some patients, genetically predisposed to
the disease, the pancreas continues to overproduce, the glucose levels
are controlled and the patient stays healthy. We do not know why some
fare better than others. Despite the odds some lazy, obese subjects
don't become ill; some lean, athletic subjects do. In both groups
factors beyond our ken, arising from the individual's contingent
history, have an effect on their fate.
Research can hope to disentangle some of these complex factors and
thereby reduce the scope of contingency. But we do not know how to
distinguish the minds of those who can control their diet and exercise
from those who cannot. " (011)
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
Executive Secretariat
Semantic Technology
EM&I
Suite 350 455 Spring park Place
Herndon VA 20170
703-742-0585 (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
Sowa
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:58 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there a universal ontology? (013)
Folks, (014)
I strongly agree with the following point that Kathy made: (015)
KBL> One can believe there is a single reality without believing
> there is a single universal ontology. (016)
For example, modern theories of physics and other "hard sciences"
have developed notations and formalisms that go far beyond ordinary
language. Some of them, such as quantum mechanics, make detailed
predictions that have proved to be very accurate, yet even the
physicists find it difficult to explain what they mean to ordinary
people, to other physicists, and even to themselves. We already
know that current theories of quantum mechanics are not absolutely
true, and we have no assurance that an absolutely true theory can
ever be found or that anyone could understand it even if it were
found. (017)
As a realist, I believe that there is a reality that is independent
of how we may think about it. But as a fallibilist, I also believe (018)
1. It is very difficult to get a precise characterization of that
reality. (019)
2. Many theories, formal and informal, that people have discovered
have a great deal of truth in them. They are sufficiently good
that people are willing to stake their lives on their predictions. (020)
3. But it is impossible to determine whether any theory that anybody
has ever proposed is exactly true to the extent that no further
correction is necessary. (021)
4. Science and engineering have abundantly demonstrated that theories
that are known to be false, but also known to be approximately
true to a very high degree (such as Newtonian mechanics) can be
extremely useful for practical applications. (022)
5. Finally, I also emphasize Peirce's "first rule of reason": (023)
Do not block the way of inquiry. (024)
Whitehead made a similar point in slightly different words: (025)
We must be systematic, but we must keep our systems open. (026)
John Sowa (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|