Skip to main content

an improvement on the principle of parsimony

This needs a catchy name--badly.  Also, maybe this is more accurately called an improvement on methodological naturalism.  But here goes (parsimony is #2 in the following list):
1. Conservation of wonder:  When describing the explanandum, don't make it sound less interesting than it really is.  For example, don't describe a sonnet as a meaningful combination of letters: it's more than that.  
2. Prefer the familiar to the exotic.  When explaining, strive to come up with explanations that rely on analogies with what is more familiar... when doing so is adequate to the task.  In other words, assign the types of properties associated with quarks only as a kind of last resort.
3. Distinguish rather than separate.  Look for how two things are different aspects of the same whole.  As in electo/magnetism. 
4. Identify the limits of the applicability of your analogies:  Every analogy limps if you make it walk far enough. 

This will accomplish as much good as the principle of parsimony / methodological naturalism but without leading to ideological battles.  More interestingly, if human agency is a kind of exemplary cause of the object of knowledge, then science that conforms to these four principles will discover everything that a methodological naturalist would do, while recognizing how the universe has the rational animal as its apex, pointing to Common Good of the Universe.  In other words, this is a kind of methodological naturalism with nature as such pointing to the divine.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...