SUO: Post Hoc Expressiveness Fallacy
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John,
The "Post Hoc Expressiveness Fallacy" (PHEF) is yet another variation on
the "reconstructing science with our tongues tied behind our back" quest.
You really ought to recognize it, since it's the same sort of argument that
is used to say that post hoc deductive rationalizations of the full inquiry
process are sufficient. Einstein wrote very good popularizations of science,
and maybe, "in pricipial", you could reconstruct a few fragments of the real
thing from them, but why? The languages and models that work, the languages
and models that catalyze discovery, that make it possible to get anywhere
at all on something less than astronomical-geological-evolutionary time
schedules, are mathematical models, and it is pointless to try and
re-invent them from scratch, as both sides of the current debate
seem to be thinking they can. I get it that fundamentalists
will always believe that way, but really, give me hope.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o