Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2005, at 19:48:05
In reply to Re: the meaning of meaning, posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2005, at 19:30:33
Braddon Mitchell & Jackson "Philosophy of mind and cognition" talk about the possibility of finding that water is all black and tarry on some other possible world.
If this this truely possible then there would seem to arise a tension between the following premises:
- Science is supposed to determine the essential properties of the objects / substances that we originally picked out by ostension (pointing and naming it).
- It is possible for qualitative properties to vary independently from essential properties (that are to be determined by science).
The qualitative properties (those that are observable to us) are surely what interests us. We were initially interested in that watery stuff that fell from the sky and quenched our thirst etc etc. The qualitative properties were what interested us in the stuff.
Science is supposed to be about discovering the essential properties of the stuff / objects...
To say that it is possible for qualitative properties to vary independently from essential properties undermines the role of science and the role of essential properties with respect to being interesting to us. If essential properties vary independently from qualitative properties then what relevance are essential properties with respect to helping us understand or fix the nature of the qualitative world. The world that we experience?
If qualitative properties vary independently from essential properties then how on earth can we find out about them? Scientists just OBSERVE. Manipulate variables and then OBSERVE the results. Observations are necessarily constrained to the qualitative level. There cannot be a radical difference between the observational and essential levels of analysis as the only way we find out about essential properties is systematic observation. Do they really mean to say that xyz behaves exactly the same as h20 in a variety of experimental conditions? If so then what grounds for saying xyz does not = h20? If it does behave differently then isn't this a difference on the qualitative level.
If qualitative properties vary independently from essential properties then this undermines the scientific enterprise if the scientific enterprise is construed as the discovery of the essential nature of the world that we experience.
Do they really want to do that????
They want to say that they can't vary independently in the actual world. But once a correlation is discovered in the actual world (between qualitative and essential properties) then when we go counter-factual (to investigate other possible worlds) it is possible for them to come apart and reference follows essential properties.
Hmm
HmmAnd it is from this kind of stuff that two-dimensional (that means connotation and dennotation) modal (possible world) semantics (meanings of terms / espressions as opposed to dennotations of terms / expressions) was born...
yukko.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:541758
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/542674.html