The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
2 added 93 characters in body
source | link

The great sin of which philosophy and science partake far too often, for Whitehead (throughout Science and the Modern World, anyway) is "Misplaced Concreteness". There is nothing wrong with models of reality, as long as they are seen as models, and remain contestable. But all models are models, and beneath any set of stable models there is 'organism' which remains uncaptured.

The basic problem beneath your question is that Boolean truth is a model, extracted out of an organic context of interest and consequence. It is important to respect the science of logic, which works on this abstraction, because it is through such abstraction that much of our communication is possible. But only considering propositions in the terms of formal logic and not in terms of real aspects of mind that grab hold of them and use them, imagines the model is concrete, and ultimately reaches a cliff, over which lies either confusion or meaninglessness.

This is the model that becomes Kuhn's model of revolution in science (by getting guttinggutted of its Idealism) and it is better stated in Kuhn's terms.

One cannot simply abandon the process of normal work, making sense in the active paradigm, prematurely, or you will lose your community, who are your sanity test. But we always need to see the paradigm as a structure and not as the whole content of truth. Otherwise, when it fails, and new paradigms are needed or when alternative, potentially much better, paradigms drift by, you have nothing to compare them to in any objective way. (The Romantic/Post-modern in me insists I Addadd "Besides missing out on the ultimate purpose of making sense, which is to have understanding.")

So your answer is a guarded 'both''both and neither'.

The great sin of which philosophy and science partake far too often, for Whitehead (throughout Science and the Modern World, anyway) is "Misplaced Concreteness". There is nothing wrong with models of reality, as long as they are seen as models, and remain contestable. But all models are models, and beneath any set of stable models there is 'organism' which remains uncaptured.

The basic problem beneath your question is that Boolean truth is a model, extracted out of an organic context of interest and consequence. It is important to respect the science of logic, which works on this abstraction, because it is through such abstraction that much of our communication is possible. But only considering propositions in the terms of formal logic and not in terms of real aspects of mind that grab hold of them and use them, imagines the model is concrete, and ultimately reaches a cliff, over which lies either confusion or meaninglessness.

This is the model that becomes Kuhn's model of revolution in science (by getting gutting of its Idealism) and it is better stated in Kuhn's terms.

One cannot simply abandon the process of making sense in the active paradigm, or you will lose your community, who are your sanity test. But we need to see the paradigm as a structure and not as the whole content of truth, or when alternative, potentially better, paradigms drift by, you have nothing to compare them to in any objective way. (The Romantic/Post-modern in me insists I Add "Besides missing out on the ultimate purpose of making sense, which is to have understanding.")

So your answer is a guarded 'both'.

The great sin of which philosophy and science partake far too often, for Whitehead (throughout Science and the Modern World, anyway) is "Misplaced Concreteness". There is nothing wrong with models of reality, as long as they are seen as models, and remain contestable. But all models are models, and beneath any set of stable models there is 'organism' which remains uncaptured.

The basic problem beneath your question is that Boolean truth is a model, extracted out of an organic context of interest and consequence. It is important to respect the science of logic, which works on this abstraction, because it is through such abstraction that much of our communication is possible. But only considering propositions in the terms of formal logic and not in terms of real aspects of mind that grab hold of them and use them, imagines the model is concrete, and ultimately reaches a cliff, over which lies either confusion or meaninglessness.

This is the model that becomes Kuhn's model of revolution in science (by getting gutted of its Idealism) and it is better stated in Kuhn's terms.

One cannot simply abandon the process of normal work, making sense in the active paradigm, prematurely, or you will lose your community, who are your sanity test. But we always need to see the paradigm as a structure and not as the whole content of truth. Otherwise, when it fails, and new paradigms are needed or when alternative, potentially much better, paradigms drift by, you have nothing to compare them to in any objective way. (The Romantic/Post-modern in me insists I add "Besides missing out on the ultimate purpose of making sense, which is to have understanding.")

So your answer is a guarded 'both and neither'.

1
source | link

The great sin of which philosophy and science partake far too often, for Whitehead (throughout Science and the Modern World, anyway) is "Misplaced Concreteness". There is nothing wrong with models of reality, as long as they are seen as models, and remain contestable. But all models are models, and beneath any set of stable models there is 'organism' which remains uncaptured.

The basic problem beneath your question is that Boolean truth is a model, extracted out of an organic context of interest and consequence. It is important to respect the science of logic, which works on this abstraction, because it is through such abstraction that much of our communication is possible. But only considering propositions in the terms of formal logic and not in terms of real aspects of mind that grab hold of them and use them, imagines the model is concrete, and ultimately reaches a cliff, over which lies either confusion or meaninglessness.

This is the model that becomes Kuhn's model of revolution in science (by getting gutting of its Idealism) and it is better stated in Kuhn's terms.

One cannot simply abandon the process of making sense in the active paradigm, or you will lose your community, who are your sanity test. But we need to see the paradigm as a structure and not as the whole content of truth, or when alternative, potentially better, paradigms drift by, you have nothing to compare them to in any objective way. (The Romantic/Post-modern in me insists I Add "Besides missing out on the ultimate purpose of making sense, which is to have understanding.")

So your answer is a guarded 'both'.