Selected (mainly critical) responses to my essays on Medium — and my replies to them. (2)
Are There Moral Facts?
Loren Wagner wrote:
“Moral realists will say there are moral facts. The imperatives, like those you cited, may not be true or false, by grammatical structure. Yet, moral realists will say a declarative form of those imperatives, ‘the right thing to do is X,’ does admit of being true or false.”
My reply:
“I don’t study Ethics. It’s not a subject I know that much about.
“That said, a distinction has to be made between moral facts and normativity (or normative statements). Even if there are moral facts, it doesn’t follow that the statement ‘You right thing to do is X’ is true or false. That’s because it isn’t itself a moral fact or about a moral fact. It may be loosely or strongly based on (or inspired by) what the speaker takes to be a moral fact (or moral facts), but the normative statement isn’t itself a moral fact.
“Does the moral realist, then, believe that statements about moral facts are true or false? He/she may well do so… I don’t really know. But, again, normative statements may be based on moral facts, but they aren’t about moral facts. So I still don’t don’t see how your ‘the right thing to do is X’ can be either true or false. (It isn’t really that different to the exclamation ‘Shut that door!’ not being true or false.)
“As for moral facts regardless of normative statements or expressions: I don’t think I believe in them either.”
****************************
Is the Copenhagen Interpretation “Woo”?
bud rap wrote:
“The problem doesn’t arise in describing quantum phenomena using classical concepts; it arises because most theorists refuse to use classical concepts to understand the nature of quantum events.”
My reply:
“I take the exact opposite view. Most theorists do use classical concepts to understand and explain quantum events. Indeed their explanations and interpretations are full of classical concepts and terms: ‘wave’, ‘particle’, ‘spin’, ‘tunneling’, etc.
bud rap wrote:
“Instead they try to interpret a mathematical formalism, the wavefunction, in physical terms and the result is a lot of nonsensical babbling (about superposition of states and wave-particle duality).”
My reply:
“I’m not sure about ‘nonsensical babbling’ and what, exactly, you believe falls under that description. Also, if they used ‘physical terms’, didn’t you just state that they refuse to use ‘classical concepts’? Unless you’re referring to physical terms which are in no way classical.”
bud rap wrote:
“There is nothing compelling about the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. It seems that its primary attraction is its very incoherence which allows adherents to wrap themselves in an aura of modern day mysticism; only true initiates can understand (but not explain) quantum inscrutability.”
My reply:
“Again, I take the opposite view. The Copenhagen interpretation is the least ‘mystical’. But that depends on what you mean because there’s a lot of literary rhetoric in your statements. For example, why is the Copenhagen interpretation ‘incoherent’ and why is it an example of ‘mysticism’?”
bud rap wrote:
“Bohmian mechanics, where a wave is a wave and a particle is a particle, makes sense of quantum mechanics employing classical concepts but is generally disfavored, likely because it makes sense and strips the field of its woo-woo exoticism.”
My reply:
“It’s interesting that it is Bohmian mechanics that has attracted many ‘mystical’ followers and interpretations. And Bohm himself suggested things which lead in that direction. Again, you don’t really explain your positions other than by mentioning such things as ‘woo-woo exoticism’ and ‘mysticism’..
“See this Medium article which strong connects Bohm to what can be called ‘woo’ or ‘mysticism’….https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/quantum-physics-and-spirituality-part-7-david-bohm-2164e1d0c9d"
******************************
What’s the Point of C.S. Peirce?
SynerGIS Informationssysteme GmbH wrote:
“It just seems like a muddled version of Poppers falsification methodology, which at least gives scientists a consistent framework to conduct their investigations.”
My reply:
“I don’t see how C.S. Peirce’s abductions are anything like Popper’s falsificationism. Peirce, at least as quoted and discussed in the essay above, doesn’t even mention or hint at falsification. Abduction is what comes before falsification and verification.
“As for ‘muddled”’ — you’d need to say why because that suggests a lack of clarity.”
SynerGIS Informationssysteme GmbH wrote:
“I don’t see how this concept of abduction is in any way useful or explanatory of anything.”
My reply:
“The essay may not go into detail as to ‘where those abductive hypothesis come from’, but Peirce did. Clearly, a short essay on Medium can’t give all the details which can possibly be given on abduction.
“You wrote, ‘We can choose between a myriad of (mostly completely wrong statements.’ Sure. Peirce would have happily admitted that. What makes you believe that Peirce would have denied that such abductions weren’t themselves based on ‘prior experience’? And how would we know that the statements were right (rather than ‘completely wrong’) at this stage — even if they were right?”
SynerGIS Informationssysteme GmbH wrote:
“explanations who is not shedding more light on how we do come by those tentative statements…”
My reply:
“That isn’t really the point of the essay or Peirce’s abductions. You’re criticising an apple for not being an orange. You say ‘shedding more light on how we do come by those tentative statements’ — that could be an issue in psychology and may have nothing to do with either science or logic. People may come to ‘tentative statements’ because they were on drugs, because they were reared in the wild, because they had read only Medium stories, etc — so? Peirce was battling against what he saw as a wrong and prevalent view of science (or scientific methodology) — the view that it’s all an essentially inductive. That is made clear in the essay and you’ve completely ignored it. The most I would admit is that this is now a — at least partly — historical issue. Yet that is also clear in the essay. Again, the essay is about oranges, not your apples.”
SynerGIS Informationssysteme GmbH wrote:
“Anyone can frame a a process, coin fancy terminology for whatever it is and write a thick tome about it. It’s just not worth reading them if they don’t add anything.”
My reply:
“A lot of vague rhetoric there. I don’t like responding to rhetoric because it tends to be a waste of time. That’s primarily because the responder will usually come back with yet more of the same kind of rhetoric.”
***************************
No comments:
Post a Comment