Pages

Saturday, March 07, 2009

The Differences

Phil:....yet more importantly it is only in difference that often times much is learned.


IT is appropriate that such a point( self evident) in terms of "differences" is brought forward here for introspection, as a "inductive recognition of our journey's into society and our pursuance of understanding it's structure." This allows us to move forward under a new paradigmatic model for consideration attempts of what shall be introduced back into that same society. One will be able to see "the list" from which this first entry speaks too. It goes beyond the page 200. The Title in which I had given this exercise was based on the page number 63, hence the title, "63:Six of Red Spades


Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.


Now you must know this is an extract of a process that was presented to me in context of this book by Thomas Kuhn. I do not know if any can follow along. As I mention in a previous comment to Phil, it was more to the idea of the beginning of a "inductive process" in recognition of the Aristotelean arch that this example of Bacon and Plato was to recognize how such a method was to be used to project themself forward in time, while existing as the individuals they were. They needed to see beyond the boundaries of self encumbered, to see that the sun shined as a fixture in the ideal, and in this aspect, knew it to be, that such an ideal can exist too in an ideal state.

"I was the justest judge that was in England these last fifty years. When the book of all hearts is opened, I trust I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart. I know I have clean hands and a clean heart. I am as innocent of bribes as any born on St Innocents Day." Sir Francis Bacon


IN the spirit of Sir Francis Bacon and his short time in prison, one wonders if Sir Francis Bacon needed to break free of the chains that bound him? Cloaked himself, so that such excursions into the communicative world would have allow him to portray and speak relevance to the conditions of those same times. Artistically endowed, in his opinion of those times as the plays of Shakespeare? To be free from persecution.

***


See:
  • Oh Dear!... How Technology has Changed Things
  • Orators Reduced to Written Words


  • See Also:
  • Revolutions for Change
  • Observation Pays Off
  • 6 comments:

    Phil Warnell said...

    Hi Plato,

    You certainly are of late touching on subject matters that I hold myself as highly significant in terms of humanity's search for truth and understanding. As you are aware I have addressed these issues in my own humble scribbling. First in describing what I call the hunches science uses as being symmetry and economy, which when brought together reveal as being simply different aspects (perspectives) of the same central truth, which Plato would have said was the “good” and Pirsig insisted further can be distilled down to be what we call and recognize as “quality”.

    Is it then not remarkable that more then two millennia after Emmy Noether would wield the logic of mathematics to prove the same and that this now stands as being at the very heart of more than a single aspect of acquiring a greater understanding? So perhaps now your may better understand for me how it is I insist that to ask “why” is the most central and yet perhaps the most misunderstood question within the search for knowledge.

    Best,

    Phil

    Plato said...

    Phil:So perhaps now you may better understand for me how it is I insist that to ask “why” is the most central and yet perhaps the most misunderstood question within the search for knowledge.

    Yes, most certainly so. I read each of your links, and yes, the right question existed in you already as well.

    Just to verify that I have understood correctly with respect to your position. That the "why" is the "simplest route to an explanation." That this position has in your view been removed from being part of the science process, as a whole. That this is as you might say, with respect to the Aristotelean arch, a point self evident which leads to the simplest answer being brought in line with science excursions forward?

    It had to be looked at as, "a wave and a particle at the same time?:)"

    Yes indeed. I learnt something very important from our exchange and had one not taken the time, what might I have been missed?

    Facets of this understanding always existed inside and I understood, but it took a book and another point of view to establish a firm foundation with which to speak from, regardless of the science credentialed.

    This is not to disavow this process but to put it rightly so where it belongs in contrast too. Now moving beyond the duality.

    This has helped me to understand better the place I actually reside in, in terms of the economy as well.

    What must be done.

    While the "why" might reside far from a science mind mechanistically is without this other half, "is" purely mechanical. It's value is as a whole, related to that "why" you point out. Of course to be sure, I seek validation in my interpretation.:)Would it seem that I have applied it well?

    Best,

    Phil Warnell said...

    Hi Plato,

    Yes, I think you have it pretty well. Basically it is to recognize purpose and realize that possibility is limited in the way that it can be satisfied. So if it be the “good” or “quality” it can always be indentified as it having purpose. So in the act of discovering how nature works we need to recognize its utility, otherwise we learn little. The true lesson of what Noether discovered is, that while symmetry provides the “how” or a way (method), the “why” is found in its economy or need to conserve (utility).

    So to say there is beauty in truth or truth in beauty, are not quite to the point; rather that there is no beauty without truth and no truth without beauty, since they are qualities defining same. That is to say that to have a “how” there must be a “why”. So in this respect we can say that antropic principle is only wrong in that the restriction is not tight enough, as its not our world is as it is otherwise we would not be hear to observe it to be; yet rather it is the way it is otherwise there would be nothing either to be and/or observe.

    What has many hung up is whether it is born of intent or not, when the question that should be asked is what is intent beyond simply requiring to be? So the way I look at it whether it is string theory, loop quantum gravity, super symmetry or what ever, what is possible within them is not also to be considered possible to be real. To insist this for me is like saying that the shortest line that encloses the greatest area can be a shape other then round. That is to say that possibility is not simply defined in purpose yet rather more importantly restricted by it.

    Best,

    Phil

    Phil Warnell said...

    Hi Plato,

    I noticed the reference to this post you made to Bee and would just like to say that what has me confident that there is an inescapable significance to difference; as it to be important to the nature of reality, is tied up with what is known as potential. That is to remind there can exist nothing known as potential, unless difference exists to be found and without potential there is no becoming and thus how can there ever be being. As for instance, is entropy the search for equilibrium or rather the action of potential moving things from what could never be, to that which is certain to be; or in other words simply being.

    Best,

    Phil

    Phil Warnell said...

    Hi Plato,

    I just noticed that you have added moderation to your blog,which I find as disappoining, as it denies transparency, which in my opinion is a prerequisite to understanding. That is the difference between truth and propaganda begins when we create the cave, where our sense of reality is limited to only that of our perceptions of it. This is of course not a teaching of mine, yet one who was far wiser which you have knowledge of. It is one thing to censor, as to correct after it is first there for all who care to see, and yet another to have things to be never seen, as without difference there is no potential for being.

    Best,

    Phil

    Plato said...

    Phil:I just noticed that you have added moderation to your blog,which I find as disappoining, as it denies transparency, which in my opinion is a prerequisite to understanding.

    No Phil, it was added for me and I thought I had dealt with it from your last comment and blog article you wrote that I linked too.

    As you must have noticed the entries are becoming fewer and fewer, due to being just plane busy and comments like yours were waiting for my approval. I hopefully have dealt with completely this time.

    Now to look at your post comments.

    Best,