Hi Everyone,

   I don't know if I agree with your outcomes or
conclusions. The proccess of science itself, at
best is to test and discover whether our own
observations about the world are true or not.
Teleological effects, have little
or no impact on the process of observation in itself.
What we do with the observation after it has been
designated as law or theory or still even a
hypotheses, is where it gets tricky, on telegicol
outcomes in comparison to events. Today, I was just
reading Edward Teller's biography entitled "Memoirs."
It's fascinating to think about his reasoning behind
building the hydrogen bomb. Obviously, the outcomes of
what to do with the quantum mechanics were effected by
teleological decisions and society but the science
itself was just science, whatever the nature of that
maybe.

Li-
--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Lisa and Everyone:
>
> Lisa you get a 'gold medal' for
> inquisitiveness....and
>
> don't you think the definitions below create some
> special problems for
> ethics?
>
> For instance, many phenomena, personal beliefs,
> feelings, and even
> sensations cannot be 'tested' or 'measured'. The
> psychologist cannot
> 'measure' the consciousness of pain, the ecologist
> cannot measure 'holism'
> nor can the animal ethicist measure or test 'animal
> values' (except prices).
>
> Ethical values cannot be 'tested' because ethical
> values often depend on
> 'axiological' support; and such notions as goodness,
> beauty and truth are
> 'human expressions.' Economic values can be tested
> (prices, etc.) but
> ethical values cannot be tested primarily because
> animals including humans
> are still evolving, still maturing into something
> else, and there appears to
> be 'ends' to nature.....
>
> I think that for something to be said to be
> 'testable' means that the
> observer has to have a particular approach or
> attitude about generating a
> few generalizations (laws) , and that is why I would
> suggest that a
> 'hypothesis' does not have to be 'testable' if there
> are such 'teleological'
> notions as the good, the beautiful and the true. We
> live 'as though they
> exist' (Nietzsche would argue for this).
>
> For instance, if the 'whole' is not testable, but it
> is believed that all
> things, all objects together have a certain 'end' or
> 'telos' then if the
> 'whole' is affirmed by a certain attitude (eg. life,
> liberty and happiness
> are not simply personal subjective desireables, but
> rather form a collective
> motto regarding what is ultimately experienced as
> desireable, with
> surprises, and upsets), the 'object' which is
> testable is not finished (ecce
> homo). That is, humanity, and what humanity
> experiences, is what is
> unfinished. People are the 'unfinished' and the
> 'unfurnished' (in the sense
> of lacking basic answers to the telological. Only
> 'finished' things can be
> 'tested' utilizing 'induction' or 'trail and error'.
>
> So in a sense then everything is testable, all
> statements, both the
> 'finished' and the 'unfinished' (excepting the
> Finnish people). What appears
> as 'opposing in nature' is a 'contradiction' in
> human conversation,
> dialogue, discourse.
>
> Ultimately the hypothesis 'par excellence' is God,
> or the Good, depending on
> your "a-, non-, or theological beliefs.
>
> Plato said that the 'soul desires one thing, and
> that is the Good.' But the
> good cannot be known, and the closest that the soul
> can come to know the
> Good is to 'sense' the beauty that emanates from the
> Good. The point is that
> the 'soul' or 'persona (memory, self, etc.) desires
> only one thing....and
> nothing else but the Good.
>
> We share this as humanity with each other, and this
> itself is 'untestable'
> .....or mystical. Thus the 'ecosystem' is more
> mystical than are animal
> values (which include prices in a black market). But
> the animal values and
> the ecosystem are 'untestable' ...both depending on
> different terms.
>
> chao
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lisa Dangutis <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Query of the day?
>
>
> > As you all may remember, there has been some
> disagreement
> > about what  a hypothesis,a law, and a theory
> really is.
> >
> > I am posing some definitions to you:
> >
> > "Hypothesis: A testable statement about the
> natural world that can be
> > used to build more complex inferences and
> explanations."
> > Book Title: Teaching about Evolution and the
> Nature of Science.
> >
> >
> > "Theory: In science, a well substantiated
> explanation of the natural world
> > that can incorporate, facts, laws, inferences, and
> tested hypothesis."
> > Book Title: Teaching about Evolution and the
> Nature of Science.
> >
> > "Law: A descriptive generalization about how some
> aspect of the
> > natural world behaves under stated circumstances"
> > Book Title: Teaching about Evolution and the
> Nature of Science.
> >
> > I didn't write them, and I apologize for my bad
> quoting, I didn't
> > have the page numbers in hand.
> >
> > Best
> > Li-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail
http://mail.yahoo.com