Announcing: Answers To Top 10 Questions About The Brain

[Mr Michael Bibby]

I thought I might seize upon this because I consider it core essential to our
discussion.


>So you reckon scientists just "construct" their data do you? Dangerous
>talk.

Yes, that is what I am saying. All the way from data gathering efforts and
logico-mathematical statistical analysis of the observational data right through
to theory formulation and selection. For example, I need only direct your
attention towards the fundamental problem of incommensurability of the construct
validity of operational definitions of ‘commensurate’ (observable) entities and
to the problem of ‘underdetermination of theory by the observational data’ as
physicists like to call it. A fact is only a fact in a given theoretical
framework. Empirical meaning is fixed not by some extralinguistic reality but
instead is fixed by casting theoretical terms in an empirical mould (through
operational definitions and constructs): all this means that the observational
language, which we cloth ‘facts’ in, cannot be considered ‘theory neutral’ as
positivism maintains (i.e., positivism, most strongly associated with Comte,
states that all theoretical terms must be clothed in observational/’empirical’
terms; this reflects the positivists distinction between ‘theory-neutral
observation terms’ [‘facts’] and ‘theory’).

Like I love to say; ‘facts’ are like artefacts, they are built by us for our
unique purposes, they are the ‘free creations of the human mind’, human-specific
constructs, like Vico said “God is the artificer of nature and man the God of
artefacts”. Facts are anthropomorphically defined entities that exist in a
human-cultural-space: a thing is what it is not because of anything intrinsic or
essential to it, but by virtue of what we make it: ‘man is the measure of all
things’, as Plato put it; ‘The true is the made’ (Vico). To put it another way
“the content of our knowledge must be considered the free creation of our
culture. It resembles a traditional myth.” (Fleck). But this presents us with
one lasting problem; human culture is just as inscrutable as the physical
environement, neither of them present us with a legible face leaving us only to
develop the methodological tools and language to decipher them. 

Saying that theory selection is solely determined by the observational data is
like saying that there is only one true interpretation of the bible;
observations (whether in the physical domain or the cultural domain) are like
texts: “writing is read, and ‘in the last analysis’ does not give rise to
hermeneutic deciphering, to the decoding of a meaning or truth”- Derrida. 

Further to all this, even when we use the ‘same’ observational language, we may
be using it in fundamentally incommensurable ways; this is closely related to
Quine’s inscrutability/indeterminacy of references thesis; again, empirical
meaning is not fixed by some 'extralinguistic reality' it is fixed by us as we
apply empirical terms to our own experiences. 

Dangerous talk you say, I say, It is nothing more than a pious hope to think
that we are discovering ontic reality and penetrating into the internal
constitution of things, unveiling the inner workings of nature. the word
'Discovery' is a rhetorical device we use to authoratize our truth claims and
displace responcibility; it is a relative term and is not the polar opposite of
‘invent’ as many seem to believe i.e., if I ‘discover’ (or invent for that
matter, ‘discover’ does not carry much weight here) a problem and ‘find’ (come
across, formulate, stumble upon etc) a solution does that mean to say that I
have ‘discovered’ the solution? or,  ‘Discovered’ A solution?

I choose my words carefully, to convey what I properly mean in order that I be
understood. If you want to engage any of these criticisms feel free to do so, I
would enjoy taking the opportunity to explore these and other issues further,
but the last thing I want to do is get lost in semantic debates! 



mickeyd