Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Oct 07, 2009; 6:13am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-EMERGENCE-SEMINAR-V-Dennett-et-al-WAS-emergence-seminar-what-s-next-tp3772391p3780000.html
Owen,
The answer to your question was meant to be in the post. I have added
some stuff to try to make it clearer.
Hempel and Oppenheim are big on the deductiive nomological account of
explanation.
For example, let it be the case that I am curious why the brick fell on my
toe when I let go of it
If I have a theory that says that all unsupported objects fall, and the
observations that I let go of the brick and my toe was under it, then I
have an adequate explanation for my damaged toe. Notice I didnt have to
mention gravity once
The form of the explanation is deductive syllogism:
LAW:All sunsupported oBjects fall (This is the nomological part). e
ANTECEDENT: This brick was an unsupported object
ANTECEDENT: My toe was under the brick
CONCLUSION: Therefore, this brick fell on my toe.
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (
[hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <
[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 10/6/2009 9:01:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] EMERGENCE SEMINAR V: Dennett et al;WAS: emergence
seminar: what's next?
>
> BTW: I believe this may be more in the line of Nick's statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_modelNick?
-- Owen
On Oct 6, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> The specific phrase I believe we are discussing is, on page 64:
> "The preceding considerations suggest the following redeï¬nition of
> emergence: The occurrence of a characteristic W in an object w is
> emergent relative to a theory T, a part relation Pt, and a class G
> of attributes if that occurrence cannot be deduced by means of T
> from a characterization of the Pt-parts of w with respect to all the
> attributes in G."
>
>> Main Entry: no·mo·log·i·cal
>> Function: adjective
>> Etymology: nomology science of physical and logical laws, from
>> Greek nomos + English -logy
>> : relating to or expressing basic physical laws or rules of
>> reasoning <nomological universals>
>
> We have found that the discussions within the book use words in ways
> specific to their context. Thus Nick's "deductive nomological
> account of explanation" is likely to mean more than the individual
> words might imply.
>
> Possibly we are failing to use the word "logic"?
>
> I still think we should add it to the Nictionary if it is of use.
> It seems to be.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Robert Cordingley wrote:
>
>> It's already there:
>>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nomological>> Robert C
>>
>> Owen Densmore wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> But.... Hempel and Oppenheim are big on the deductiive
>>>> nomological account of explanation.
>>>
>>> Could you clarify the above? .. and maybe add "nomological" to the
>>> Nictionary?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org