At 01:47 PM 5/5/96 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
>OK so maybe I did have a bit of a grump on. I'm feeling more cheerful
>now (coming down off a pill or two),
and, certainly, i was a bit cheeky....with regard to bombyness (i've got
more sleep since then.)
>
>yes scientists do construct meanings, and yes, almost entirely through
>language (in particular mathematical language but also other 'langages').
>But as someone else said, unlike other meanings, these work. That doesn't
>mean they're true, except on their own terms as it were. But the very
>complex linguistic constructs they use are, ultimately, practically
>effective, and (more contentiously) they are effective in
>producing non-linguistic events.
I would hate to have argue about complexities, that some are more complex
than others. complexity and simplicities are questions of (evaluated from)
perpectives and predilections and motives. I do not know really that the
complexities of the lanugage games of science are any more complex than the
language games of politics or of religion, or of ...?; and, certainly as to
one or another being more effective than the other, I cannot imagine the
criteria that one would create in order to evaluate such a comparative
evaluation. certainly, once one comprehends science not as revealing the
"Truth" but as a language game, then the assumption that there is a
universally valid criteria to measure the differences between language games
in terms of greater/lesser complexity and more/less effectiveness would
become impossible to acccept -- or so i imagine.
>
>
>OK so maybe I did have a bit of a grump on. I'm feeling more cheerful
>now (coming down off a pill or two),
and, certainly, i was a bit cheeky....with regard to bombyness (i've got
more sleep since then.)
>
>yes scientists do construct meanings, and yes, almost entirely through
>language (in particular mathematical language but also other 'langages').
>But as someone else said, unlike other meanings, these work. That doesn't
>mean they're true, except on their own terms as it were. But the very
>complex linguistic constructs they use are, ultimately, practically
>effective, and (more contentiously) they are effective in
>producing non-linguistic events.
I would hate to have argue about complexities, that some are more complex
than others. complexity and simplicities are questions of (evaluated from)
perpectives and predilections and motives. I do not know really that the
complexities of the lanugage games of science are any more complex than the
language games of politics or of religion, or of ...?; and, certainly as to
one or another being more effective than the other, I cannot imagine the
criteria that one would create in order to evaluate such a comparative
evaluation. certainly, once one comprehends science not as revealing the
"Truth" but as a language game, then the assumption that there is a
universally valid criteria to measure the differences between language games
in terms of greater/lesser complexity and more/less effectiveness would
become impossible to acccept -- or so i imagine.