Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematize what it reveals. He arrives at two generalizations:

No sea-creature is less than two inches long.
All sea-creatures have gills.

These are both true of his catch, and he assures tentatively that they will remain true however often he repeats it.
In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not be obtained by observation is not admitted into physical science.
An onlooker may object that the first generalization is wrong. "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ispo facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't fish." Or--to translate the analogy--"If you are not simply guessing, you are claiming knowledge of the physcial universe discovered in some other way than by the methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable by such methods. You are a meta-physician. Bah!"

- Sir Arthur Eddington

What is your personal interpretation of the quoted piece that we might make comment on it?

This could be interpreted in two ways, I'd guess.

I'd say that the scientist that dismisses further evidence is not a scientist. If he makes a device that nets two-inch long fish and then surmises that only two-inch long fish exist in this particular lake of water, then he is correct in his assumption. Until proven otherwise. It doesn't make sense for the scientist to relegate revelatory evidence to the back-burner merely because it doesn't jive with his previous findings. Unless evidence can be duplicated and quantified by others, the scientist does not hold onto a true theory or hypothesis. (I'm guessing <b>Cris</b> could put this much more succinctly and correctly than myself). Thus the scientist in the story is not actually a scientist, since he bases his understanding on his findings alone and does not update them from time to time as new findings arise.

Therefore, this story can only be the second interpretation. Namely, those that dismiss evidence to the contrary and only hold onto their own personal conjectures of truth can not speak for others. The non-scientist that says he only sees two-inch long fish regardless of what others dredge up out of the body of water refuses to see what others have discovered.

In the <i>Allegory of the Cave</i>, Socrates talks about how the man only believes (even after he is presented with contrary evidence) what he has imagined all along. The shadows on the wall cast from the light behind are the only reality he knows, so that's what he believes. Even though that's ultimately just one facet of reality, the man continues in his rut of thinking because he refuses to know anything else.

Thanks!

prag

Originally posted by Mr. G
What is your personal interpretation of the quoted piece that we might make comment on it?

It's an analogy and it's makes a clear point.

I'm not pulling an Adam here so hold your horses! :D

Why did you state that and NOT make your own personal interpretation of the quoted piece? You need me to do it first??! :o

Anyway...


Originally posted by pragmathen
This could be interpreted in two ways, I'd guess.

Actually, it was never meant to be "interpretated." Just an analogy that makes a point. But you've made things interesting so I will digress and interpret also. :cool:


I'd say that the scientist that dismisses further evidence is not a scientist. If he makes a device that nets two-inch long fish and then surmises that only two-inch long fish exist in this particular lake of water, then he is correct in his assumption.

You are tackling the analogy, so it could get more complicated, yet can be interesting.

I say he is a scientist. :)

I'll elaborate and analyze: (these can be interpreted many ways)


the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science

That is the knowledge Physical Science possesses. Just that catch.


the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it

The limits of science. But still a useful tool in acquiring knowledge.


The casting of the net corresponds to observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not be obtained by observation is not admitted into physical science.


This remains true of science. We cannot actually admit anything into physical science if it is not obtained by observation.

We observe first then systematize.


Until proven otherwise. It doesn't make sense for the scientist to relegate revelatory evidence to the back-burner merely because it doesn't jive with his previous findings.

Notice...the net is the sensory and intellectual tool for obtaining knowledge for Physical Science.

So if this tool cannot catch other things then its reasonable to say whatever it doesn't catch is not fish.

Why don't we take a look at another analogy?

If I can't read something (through English), it isn't English.


Unless evidence can be duplicated and quantified by others, the scientist does not hold onto a true theory or hypothesis.

Why do you say do?


(I'm guessing Cris could put this much more succinctly and correctly than myself). Thus the scientist in the story is not actually a scientist, since he bases his understanding on his findings alone and does not update them from time to time as new findings arise.

His findings "alone" are his only ways in the realm of physical science. Anything outside that realm is not physical science.

Anything outside of English is not English.


Therefore, this story can only be the second interpretation. Namely, those that dismiss evidence to the contrary and only hold onto their own personal conjectures of truth can not speak for others. The non-scientist that says he only sees two-inch long fish regardless of what others dredge up out of the body of water refuses to see what others have discovered.

Note:


If you are not simply guessing, you are claiming knowledge of the physcial universe discovered in some other way than by the methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable by such methods. You are a meta-physician.

Physical science requires the analyzing of nature, properties of energy, etc. This holds for physicists, chemists, astronomers, et al.

The only verifiable method is through the realm of physical science.


In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates talks about how the man only believes (even after he is presented with contrary evidence) what he has imagined all along. The shadows on the wall cast from the light behind are the only reality he knows, so that's what he believes. Even though that's ultimately just one facet of reality, the man continues in his rut of thinking because he refuses to know anything else.

Thanks!

prag

Some great points there :cool:

I enjoyed your post. :)

~The Chosen~,

I'm not pulling an Adam here so hold your horses!
I wasn't making a value judgement. I was just casting a net. ;)

pragmathen,


....the scientist that dismisses further evidence is not a scientist.
Upon first reading I came away with that possible interpretation, too--probably due to the presence of this line:

The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously.
But re-reading it, the scientist is being contemptuous of peoples' use of 'unconventional', non-scientific tools to come by knowledge not knowable to science's methodolies.

So, your second interpretation really is more the point: that, people who offer as evidence that which others cannot see themselves are offering no evidence of practical use at all.

I'll get to the meat of it:


"There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously
In the real world a scientist will say "Show me evidence of these sea creatures." If there is sufficient evidence, his theories/generalizations are modified.

The analogy falls flat on its face.

--Under Construction--

:rolleyes:

He who leaves the cave and having seen 'reality', returns because
of a great aloneness ... and discovers he is even more alone.


*Modified*

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I'll get to the meat of it:

Have you yet? :cool:

You first need to distinguish if the analogy is either rhetorical or logical.

What you think? :)


In the real world a scientist will say "Show me evidence of these sea creatures." If there is sufficient evidence, his theories/generalizations are modified.

Point is, the only verifiable way to get "evidence" is through that net. If the net can't catch it, do you think it shall be evidence for Physical Science? ;)


The analogy falls flat on its face.

Why? Nice analogy of an analogy though...:D


Originally posted by Mr. G
--Under Construction--

:rolleyes:

"What is your interpretation of others that we might make a comment on?" :D

"What is your interpretation of others that we might make a comment on?" :D
Touche' :p

Well, um. Er. Ah.... If you must know, I posted there a response intended for another thread and, upon realizing my error, erased it but left in its place a marker, but never returned to reply. :rolleyes:

Junkhead --Alice in Chains