On Mon, 06 May 1996 11:19:49 +0100, ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>At 02:55 PM 5/5/96 +1000, you wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, 4 May 1996, D Hugh-Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>Maybe Quetzil's being a bit cheeky, but he has a point.
>
>
>>>
>>>To conceive of making an A-bomb one needs to have thought of the idea of
>>>dropping explosive things on top of each other, to have some idea of how
>>>to deliver it, and to know that if you get enough U235 together it will
>>>explode. In principle you don't need a lot of quantum theory, though in
>>>this case because U235
>
>But it will _also_ require the knowledge that certain materials have certain
>properties that others do not possess. And it will require that those
>materials exist, actually exist, that is. The notion of bombi-ness alone
>doth not a bomb make. Why not bomb them with flowers. Or linguistically
>construct a theory that allows us to think our enemies away.
>
>
>>
>>>A simpler example would be gunpowder, which was used long before we had
>>>theories about oxygen and combustion.
>
>But this just makes the materialist argument, in that knowledge of theories
>about, that is linguistic conceptualisations of, oxygen and combustion were
>not necessary in order for them to have the properties they have independent
>of any knowledge we might gain of them. Also, in order for gunpowder to be
>used as gunpowder, as opposed to feathers, required that the users, Guy
>Falwkes for example, at least knew that certian materials had certain
>propoerties that others didn't..
>
>
>>
>>it is a more effective example.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>As I recall, quarks weren't "discovered" until after the bombs had been
>>>built, so that "knowledge" was apparently not necessary.
>
>But this has always been my point. The knowledge does not proceed the
>potential. Whether or not quarks, feathers, gunpowder, etc., exist and have
>the properties they have is not, solely, dependent upon humanity. Of course,
>what meaning we give to things is important, no one has denied this. But
>there are non-linguistic constraints on what meaning and/or use we can
>give/use certain things.
>>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Colin Wight
>Department of International Politics
>University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>Aberystwyth
>SY23 3DA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>>At 02:55 PM 5/5/96 +1000, you wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sat, 4 May 1996, D Hugh-Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>Maybe Quetzil's being a bit cheeky, but he has a point.
>
>
>>>
>>>To conceive of making an A-bomb one needs to have thought of the idea of
>>>dropping explosive things on top of each other, to have some idea of how
>>>to deliver it, and to know that if you get enough U235 together it will
>>>explode. In principle you don't need a lot of quantum theory, though in
>>>this case because U235
>
>But it will _also_ require the knowledge that certain materials have certain
>properties that others do not possess. And it will require that those
>materials exist, actually exist, that is. The notion of bombi-ness alone
>doth not a bomb make. Why not bomb them with flowers. Or linguistically
>construct a theory that allows us to think our enemies away.
>
>
>>
>>>A simpler example would be gunpowder, which was used long before we had
>>>theories about oxygen and combustion.
>
>But this just makes the materialist argument, in that knowledge of theories
>about, that is linguistic conceptualisations of, oxygen and combustion were
>not necessary in order for them to have the properties they have independent
>of any knowledge we might gain of them. Also, in order for gunpowder to be
>used as gunpowder, as opposed to feathers, required that the users, Guy
>Falwkes for example, at least knew that certian materials had certain
>propoerties that others didn't..
>
>
>>
>>it is a more effective example.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>As I recall, quarks weren't "discovered" until after the bombs had been
>>>built, so that "knowledge" was apparently not necessary.
>
>But this has always been my point. The knowledge does not proceed the
>potential. Whether or not quarks, feathers, gunpowder, etc., exist and have
>the properties they have is not, solely, dependent upon humanity. Of course,
>what meaning we give to things is important, no one has denied this. But
>there are non-linguistic constraints on what meaning and/or use we can
>give/use certain things.
>>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Colin Wight
>Department of International Politics
>University of Wales, Aberystwyth
>Aberystwyth
>SY23 3DA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------