Just a question and some comments on your comments:
> My point was that we are getting confused between the ontology and the
> logic. It seems that our predominant
> logic is not subject-object at all, but OBJECT-Object.
I'm not sure I understand this... (although it does remind me of something
Struan wrote when I tried to map Kant's concept of the phenoumenal/nouminal
split onto the subject/object divide; he said I had created an object/object
metaphysics, I'll try to find the post.)... Could you elaborate on what this
means a bit?
> "logically" and scientifically study the interaction between object A
> and object B, but we'd better make sure that *I* (the subject studying A
> vs. B) doesn't get in the way - that would be ... Subjective! The whole
> SO thing comes as an ontology before the logic, and tells us which
> things are valid "objects" for study.
This seems quite confused.... in the first part you seem to be talking about
"Subjectivity" influencing the OUTCOME a scientific experiment...
1. "We may 'logically' and scientifically study the interaction between
object A and object B, but we'd better make sure that *I* (the subject
studying A vs. B) doesn't get in the way [of the outcome of the experiment]-
that would be ... Subjective!" ---right?
But in the second part you address "Subjectivity" influencing the DESIGN of
a scientific experiment....
2. "The whole SO thing comes as an ontology before the logic [experiment],
and tells us which things are valid "objects" for study." ---right?
Now, I have read ZMM and I know the importance of "subjectivity" and
intuition in the evolution and design of scientific ideas... but even the
MoQ would tell us that Intellectual PoVs (or Intellectual Integrity) should
be free of Sociological PoVs (or Social Integrity). The point being...
Keeping the OUTCOME (not the DESIGN) of a scientific experiment (IPoVs)
FREE from the preferences of the experimenter (SPoVs) is high-Quality
science in any Metaphysics.
> <<<I think the problem these days is the deadly combination of Formal
> Logic and Debate----
Add to that the effect of amplification - a tiny error at the beginning
> can extrapolate to a massive screw up later.
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I actually realized after I sent this
that what I wrote didn't exactly make sense... if the formal logic being
employed by these unspecified masses we refer to isn't "flawed logic" (i.e.
due to an amplification of an initial error) then there would be no
> The "subjective", "emotional" judgment may be the safety mechanism that
> keeps things in check, allowing us to "smell" when things are going off.
Maybe in some sense... but now your flirting with turning the MoQ into the
"Emotive" morality that it has been accused of being in the past...
It's all Good,
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST