On 5/25/2012 5:20 AM, Chris Menzel wrote:
> In most contexts where ontologies are usefully employed, relativistic
> and quantum effects are irrelevant and a realistic stance — i.e., the
> assumption that the portion of reality we are interested in exists
> determinately and independently of any perceivers — is entirely
> unproblematic. (01)
I agree. I would add that even when relativity and quantum mechanics
are relevant, scientists have developed good methods for ascertaining
significant facts about those elusive areas. (02)
Just because some facts are harder to detect than others does not mean
that we have serious doubts that something that is independent of our
thoughts is really and truly out there. And just because our current
methods of observation are inadequate to detect them does not mean
that scientists will never discover some way to get information
about them. (03)
For example, the behaviorists in the early 20th century set up
prohibitions about formulating theories that assumed unobservable
processes in the brain. The major result of those prohibitions
was to block research on important areas of cognitive science. (04)
But now, new methods of neuroscience enable research that verifies
and extends the methods of cognitive science that the behaviorists
declared illegitimate. A great deal of "folk psychology" about
the mind now has some solid support from neuroscience -- and
many new and surprising results have also been discovered. (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|