syrakusos Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 It's a chicken, dammit, and you can't get one without an egg.That said, I agree that it seems (from the outside, via biographies) that inventors have a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon they are exploring. Franklin and the "electric fluid" for instance. He had this (for lack of a better word) "intuition" that there were not two kinds of electricity but only one and that when it flowed from one place to another, it compiled a surplus and left a deficit, which he called plus and minus. For about a century or more, most practicing electricians figured that Franklin got it "wrong" that he assigned the signs improperly, but chemists prefer Franklin's way of thinking that the "positive" is that which goes to the "positive" electrode, even thought that would actually be the "negatively" charged ions. The point is that the practical applications, the day to to day working mechanisms were independent of all that. You could have in 1810 built up a pretty good "electric pile" -- as Volta did -- without having the right theory, which Volta did not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 My point is only that theories are based on experience. There is no such thing as "a priori" knowledge.Well, I for one do not see how your posts about this lead to your conclusion, which I agree with. It is not a question of "the right" theory, it is a theory that is required. The examples you used don't contradict that one requires some sort of theory before one can construct a device of some sort. Call it a working model instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 It's a chicken, dammit, and you can't get one without an egg.Shouting doesn't make an argument more convincing, that is a childish idea. General semanticist got it right with a normal font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 It's a chicken, dammit, and you can't get one without an egg.Shouting doesn't make an argument more convincing, that is a childish idea. General semanticist got it right with a normal font.I'll bet anyone I can get a chicken without an egg. You can't get an egg without a chicken--no, I can do that too.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Shouting doesn't make an argument more convincing, that is a childish idea. General semanticist got it right with a normal font.It was for humor, obviously ... but I see that was lost... Whether you need a theory to understand facts or facts to construct a theory is a "chicken and egg" situation. The mind -- at least my mind -- deals with both at the same time. That is what it means to understand what you perceive.The next time that I intend to be humorous, I will more obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I'll bet anyone I can get a chicken without an egg. You can't get an egg without a chicken--no, I can do that too. --BrantI concede the point on empirical evidence. I have three eggs in the fridge which I got without a chicken ... and I have what is left of a chicken breast in there, too, and as you say, without the putatively prerequisite eggs. The retail grocer was my Maxwell's Demon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Michael,One thing is certain. If you squash a chicken, you cannot make an omelette out of it.(Feel the metaphysical undertones...) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Michael,One thing is certain. If you squash a chicken, you cannot make an omelette out of it.(Feel the metaphysical undertones...) MichaelIf u squash an egg u can't make chick condon bleu out of it. WTF?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) Is Chicken Kiev an attempt to make an omlet out of a breast? Edited March 28, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 ~ A good breast omelette has to come from one hell of a 'chick.' ('Course, there's 'road-kill', but...)~ If THAT doesn't 'egg' anyone to continue (not that anyone should) this...umbilical...thread, I don't know what will.~ As far as 'theory' and 'evidence' goes, dealing with both is the same as playing and calculating baseball ballistics...at the same time. Improving either requires the other, but...which is to be started with (aka 'fundamentals') is the bottom line: empirical-observation/experimentation vs. ratiocination-of-observations. Hmmm...'chicken-and-egg' again?LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now