[From Francisco Arocha, 940922.1339]
Bill Powers (940917.0600 MDT)
More to the point, the implication would be that some elements of our
theories are not really, in some subtle way, reducible to reports of
observations, but are _made up_ by human imagination. It would mean that
the concept of "an electron," for example, amounts to an _imagined
observation_, with no justification other than that assuming its
existence leads to consistent explanations of experience. If this were
admitted, the result would be to make science much less secure in its
claims to logically-derived knowledge about the real world.
I'd say that it depends on what you mean by "some elements of our
theories". Theories are conceptual objects whose elements are propositions;
in this sense, all elements of all theories are made up. However, if you
mean that the referents of such propositions are made up, still you can
make up the concepts but not their referents. You may think that these
exists, when in actuality they don't. But that is another matter. That's
why scientists test their hypotheses. You (Bill) seem to be preferring
observation over logical analysis as the basis of scientific claims, but I
think both are equally fundamental. Let's not forget that in science
observation without theory is worthless (but who am I to tell you this?).
Salud,
Francisco
J Francisco Arocha
1110 Pine Avenue W.
Centre for Medical Education
Mcgill University
Montreal, QC H3A 1A3