Celsus

Sorry Luiseach, I've been busy (again) this weekend. Hugo, you should really post that critique of Gill in Feedback (if only to force a response from him).

Joel

Luiseach

I think that's an excellent idea...please do, Hugo. The discussion that may result could be very interesting for us all.

Hugo Holbling

I've submitted some of my grunting to Don for posting in the Feedback Forum and will post a link as soon as one is available (or someone could do that for me). I appreciate the encouragement here but i note that i'm the one who'll take a battering from Dr. Gill if he responds. I presume you'll all join in at that point to help me?

Luiseach

Are you absolutely sure you want a postmodernist (*gasp* *shriek* *hasty genuflections*) such as myself on your debating team?

[Edited to add] ....and a literary critic no less, who was once accused of being a fallen philosopher?!

Hugo Holbling

Anyone interested can find the thread in Feedback here, with thanks to Don.

Luiseach

I'm glad this was suggested; I for one hope that Dr. Gill provides a response...it shall be interesting to watch the discussion develop...

I enjoyed the interchange between Dr. Michael Martin and whoever it was wanted to critique his work. I hear Martin doesn't usually have the time to do this sort of thing...it was very good of him to indulge us.

Hugo Holbling

This isn't a spectator sport, Luise. "Fallen philosopher" or not, your opinions are just as welcome as my nonsense and probably more interesting to everyone.

Luiseach

'Nonsense' my foot, Hugo...your critique was extremely well done, and you know it.

[edited to add] Nothing I could contribute would improve it anyway...

Hugo Holbling

I am considerably honoured to be able to report that Dr. Gill has responded to my criticisms here in an insightful manner that i believe will be of interest to those following this thread. I hope to be able to post some comments on his reply here for the benefit of anyone concerned with these questions; however, that will have to wait until later (or possibly tomorrow) as i am engaged in more important matters currently - to wit, watching The Matrix: Reloaded yet again.

If Dr. Gill should be keeping track of this thread, i should like to thank him for his reply and for finding my nonsensical mumbling worthy of a response.

Luiseach

I read Dr. Gill's response to the critique.

I agree with his assertion that 'The point is, empirical verification is all-important. Without it, a mathematical theory is just an assemblage of inscrutable mathematical symbols and notations' (from M. Gill's Response to Critique, Feedback Forum).

Indeed, I was most gratified to see that Dr. Gill posed the same query about 'truth' that I did earlier in this thread. This issue is directly relevant to the topic at hand, after all.

I've extracted the following passage from his Feedback reply:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am inclined to accept (Hilary) Putnam's thesis (Losee, J., A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford--New York, 1993, p. 268), which is as follows (although it, too, is not beyond criticism of several kinds): "Within a scientific domain, increasing predictive success reflects an increasingly more adequate approximation to truth. And in so far as successive predictively successful theories make different claims about particular theoretical objects (e.g., electrons, gravitational fields, genes), these objects must exist."

Similarly, I am agreeably disposed to Boyd's conclusion that "It is probable that successive theories with a scientific domain typically converge upon truth" (Losee, J., p. 269).

But then what is truth and what is objective reality? Is there general agreement on the true nature and definition of these entities?
(from M. Gill's Response to Critique, Feedback Forum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I agree with Gill's comments on the difference between philosophy and science, namely that there are limits to philosophy's ability to produce knowledge; scientific enquiry is, to put it simply, not only necessary in knowledge-building, but ultimately more certain, rigorous and thorough because of its dedication to empiricism (empiricism being, of course, a philosophical stance/approach itself) ;-).

Or, as Gill puts it himself:

'This is the difference between philosophy and Science that I want to emphasize. No amount of philosophical insightful analysis and reasoning would have discovered Quantum Mechanics, as I had pointed out in my essay. It was experimental observation and its use in formulating a scientific theory that gave birth to quantum mechanics.'
(from M. Gill's Response to Critique, Feedback Forum)