82,882
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 21: | Line 21: | ||
But notice, too, how the idea of the “ultimate solution” — I know, right? — cleaves to rather [[monomyth]]ical ideas about the nature of life: that there are rules, it is bounded, has a running time, a definitive up and down, left and right, start and finish. There is a quest to be resolved. ''We are players inside a [[finite game]]''. | But notice, too, how the idea of the “ultimate solution” — I know, right? — cleaves to rather [[monomyth]]ical ideas about the nature of life: that there are rules, it is bounded, has a running time, a definitive up and down, left and right, start and finish. There is a quest to be resolved. ''We are players inside a [[finite game]]''. | ||
If this is right — ''only'' if this is right — then [[epistemic priority]] is important. Not just for its efficiency, but for the [[second order derivative|second order connections]] it vouches safe. For all theories must interconnect, | If this is right — ''only'' if this is right — then [[epistemic priority]] is important. Not just for its efficiency, but for the [[second order derivative|second order connections]] it vouches safe. For all theories must interconnect, match, share the same logic, assumptions and ontology. Every point on every branch of the logic must be correct, lest we throw out the whole machine. | ||
Rather like a crossword solution that looks right, but | Rather like a proposed crossword solution that for one clue looks right, but later turns out to have been mistaken, 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. But the mechanics of the cosmos is no ordinary 15 by 15 grid. Not even a bank holiday jumbo grid. | ||
So to [[reductionists]], epistemic priority is important. Critical to the mission. | {{Quote|“you might think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space”}} | ||
Engineering must be perfect. There is no tolerance in the system no room for ambiguity or alternative hypothesis stop if you have to commit to reductionism everything has to be right. | |||
An hour experience in the history of science comma, is anything but. The progress of technique from the the discovery of fire to the proof of the big's hose on is no no orchestra rated parade to enlightenment. Every theory has succeeded every previous one by conquest. | |||
So to [[reductionists]], epistemic priority is important. Critical to the mission. The slightest internal inconsistency is a killer. | |||
But, problem: on what grounds can we award such priority? Until we find that broken second order link, then the competing models have the same explanatory power. Even if we do find broken link, who is to say whether the present theory or some other one is at fault? | |||
===Or there might be no such thing=== | |||
I suppose it would be cheeky to invoke occam's razor against the the extraordinary conjectures of ISM. Without any reason beyond a parrot logical consistency what grounds are there for believing it. Question is is similar to the one Richard Dawkins asks of intelligent design. Just because something seems to be designed intelligently comic that doesn't mean it is. Likewise just because the universe seems to behave with regularities and according to consistent principles, that doesn't mean necessarily it's does. | |||
To pluralists, [[pragmatist]]s answer is “no.” Horses for courses. If your models works, use it. | To pluralists, [[pragmatist]]s answer is “no.” Horses for courses. If your models works, use it. | ||