Levels of description

[nomadthethird]

Thanks for the paralax(ative) poetix.

For the record I didn't read this post as a criticism of abstraction or language, I read it as a gentle reminder that different abstractions may coexist and be simultaneously valid.

Right, Jambo. But there's no science, or theory, or philosophy without constant re-evaluation of technical/descriptive language. Some of the most interesting developments in theory, philosophy, and science, imo, have come on the heels of arch exchanges and all-out jargon warfare.

For most philosophers or students of philosophy, it's differences between theories that are more interesting than broad similarities. When it comes to the sort of transversal dialectic between science and metaphysics/philosophy, you can only expect a heated debate, right?

What kind of scientist is going to say "well, I imagine we're just talking about the same thing, even though your metaphysical claims contradict x, y, and z"? Not a very interesting one. And a theorist who says "well, scientific abstractions are just as valid as my own, even when they are entirely averse to my own ontological/metaphysical/etc ones"...?

 

[nomadthethird]

It's very few people, outside fundamentalists, who limit themselves to one sort of "abstraction" when it comes to describing the world, isn't it? I know there are greedy reductionists, but I don't think most of the people here qualify for that kind of dubious honor.

My personal favs when it comes to higher level abstraction are biology, biochemistry, organic/inorganic chemistry, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry. Maybe very broadly these count as "medicine." But I don't think I try to reduce everything to any one set of abstractions...maybe I try to find the interstices and work from there...

Most people here seem capable of acknowledging the validity of many different abstract systems. As far as I can tell...