Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ucbvax!brahms!desj From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: On Quoted Material Message-ID: <15807@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 23:16:19 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15807 Posted: Wed Sep 24 23:16:19 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:38:50 EDT References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <10223@cca.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 89 In article <10223@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >>In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: >>> >>>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >>> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >>> bring our own bias into the matter. >> >> There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >>uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >>(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). > >All too often people (and Rich Rosen) quote material from other people >and then comment on the quoted material in a way that does address what >was actually said. Our example for today is: > >Number 3 is quite blatant -- Gallmeister says "uncharacterizable in its >entirety by Man" and David renders it as "uncharacterizable". >Gallmeister asserts a certain type of limitation on knowledge and >David translates this into an assertion that no knowledge at all is >possible. When we quote material, the *purpose* of this quoting is to put our statements into context. Thus, it seems (or at least seemed) perfectly acceptable to repeat the arguments of the original poster in a more abbreviated form, since the original quotation is *right there*, if a more detailed statement of the original poster's views is desired. This seems *especially* clear in a parenthetical remark, which in ordinary usage serves only to specify the antecedent of the preceding noun; in this case the noun, "your [Gallmeister's] statement," seems sufficient in itself, given that one and only one statement of Gallmeister is quoted immediately above! It seems *obvious* to me that when I write "uncharacterizable," in the context of the above quotation, that I am using the word in the same way as in the original quotation. It seems, therefore, unnecessary to *repeat* the exact words of the original posting, in order to desig- nate the statement to which I am referring. Nevertheless, I seem to have been mistaken, since Mr. Harter was unable to discerm my meaning. I will, therefore, repeat my statement, in a sufficiently verbose form as to make its meaning perfectly evident to all readers: There is no evidence to support Mr. Gallmeister's statement (that the universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). Since this semantic clarification was of such importance to Mr. Harter that he thought it appropriate to post on the matter, I felt it was only proper for me to do the same. >>>2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there >>> is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are >>> labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so >>> far as we can see today. >> >> There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the >>universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, >>therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go >>along with your opinion as expressed above. > >David's response in #2 is also unresponsive. Gallmeister makes >the legitimate observation that our descriptions of the universe >are different in character from the universe itself, and David reads >him as saying that it is impossible to understand the universe. It should be obvious (except perhaps to Mr. Harter) that I disagree with Gallmeister's "legitimate observation" (is this Mr. Harter's idea of an unbiased description of the statement in question?). Neither Gallmeister nor Mr. Harter has produced evidence that the behavior of the universe is substantially different in character from our descrip- tions of that behavior. It seems that from such a belief it must necessarily follow that it is impossible to understand the behavior of the universe; if the universe does indeed behave in a manner that does not correspond to any description that we can make, how can we expect to understand that behavior that cannot be described?? Further, if the behavior of the universe is in a manner which cannot be described, then what reason can we have to believe that the universe will in the future behave in one manner rather than in another? Scien- tific belief is inextricably based on belief in induction, that the universe will continue to behave in the manner that it has been observed to behave. This itself is a "rule"; if the universe does not behave according to such rules, then science itself is without justification or foundation. -- David desJardins P.S. I have regretfully refrained from defending myself in net.sf-lovers. I can only wonder why Mr. Harter thought it appropriate to attack me there.