82,890
edits
Epistemic priority: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
On this theory there is at the top of that grand staircase (often the metaphor is literally inverted, and the progress described as a descent to fundamental structural engineering in the basement, but a stairway to heaven seems to us a much better image) a grand unifying theory of everything. when we have that, then — well, supporters of the grand unifying theory haven't carried on that thought experiment. But notice how it cleaves to the idea the universe is a bounded, time-bound, ''[[finite]]'' system. | On this theory there is at the top of that grand staircase (often the metaphor is literally inverted, and the progress described as a descent to fundamental structural engineering in the basement, but a stairway to heaven seems to us a much better image) a grand unifying theory of everything. when we have that, then — well, supporters of the grand unifying theory haven't carried on that thought experiment. But notice how it cleaves to the idea the universe is a bounded, time-bound, ''[[finite]]'' system. | ||
If this is right then epistemic priority is important for the second order connections it vouches safe. Rather like a crossword solution that looks right, but isn't, and thereby buggers up the rest of the grid, a valuable but wrong theory will lead to trouble down the line if it isn’t rooted out pronto. | If this is right, then epistemic priority is important for the second order connections it vouches safe. Rather like a crossword solution that looks right, but isn't, and thereby buggers up the rest of the grid, a valuable but wrong theory will lead to trouble down the line if it isn’t rooted out pronto. | ||
So the [[pragmatist]] | So to [[reductionists]], epistemic priority is important. Critical to the mission. | ||
But, problem: on what grounds can we award such priority? If we find that broken second order link, then the competing models no longer have the same explanatory power. This is how paradigms degenerate. | |||
To pluralists, [[pragmatist]]s answer is “no.” Horses for courses. If your models works, use it. | |||
We know our view of the world does not accord to scientific facts. Atomic structures of granite blocks feel hard and impermeable, but atomic models tell is they are mostly comprised of space: an atom is a walnut on the centre circle being orbited by peas at the edge of a football stadium. But that is no more true an image of an atom than a granite block. These are all just models to help us comprehend. | |||
(It is no little irony that the “gaze heuristic” works worst in theory — I just “kind of keep my eye on the ball and keep running” might struggle to get past peer review — but best in practice: there’s a reason not many astrophysicists play cricket for England.) | (It is no little irony that the “gaze heuristic” works worst in theory — I just “kind of keep my eye on the ball and keep running” might struggle to get past peer review — but best in practice: there’s a reason not many astrophysicists play cricket for England.) | ||