tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post3560211862820441701..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Intrinsic propertiesLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-41477174570395308762008-03-06T10:17:00.000-07:002008-03-06T10:17:00.000-07:00Interesting point. I think I'll investigate those...Interesting point. I think I'll investigate those links, but I have some reactions right off the bat.<BR/><BR/>I've posted a response on <A HREF="http://onfireforreason.blogspot.com/2008/03/intrinsic-properties-and-faith.html" REL="nofollow">my blog</A>, but here's the main point in an excerpt:<BR/><BR/>I agree that science is ultimately about relational, not intrinsic properties (considering pseudo-intrinsics to be relational). Science reduces to measurements and logic. And all measurement is inherently relational - how could it be otherwise? Measurement is always relative to some standard, which itself may or may not be fixed to intrinsics. Of course, if the standard does happen to be an actual intrinsic, this itself is unverifiable (e.g. unmeasurable). To measure a property as intrinsic, the standard for measurement must itself be intrinsic. And so on for ever and ever. Amen.<BR/><BR/>Just to make the statement, as Mark does, that physics does not "tell us anything about the natures of the entities that enter into these relations" is to presuppose the conclusion that they have an ultimate nature to begin with. This is unscientific. As you say, though, this is the intuitive view. This intuition seems to be the only support that Mark has going for his implicit assertion that intrinsic properties might be there to be ignored by science. On what grounds does he trust his intuition that intrinsic properties exist in the first place? As I've explained, he certainly has no evidence (e.g. measurements) to support this.<BR/><BR/>So this whole issue boils down to measurement versus intuition, which is another way to say "evidence versus faith".godmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12883518524499761700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36826546150765994532008-03-06T09:22:00.000-07:002008-03-06T09:22:00.000-07:00I don't know yet precisely what premises Rowlands ...I don't know yet precisely what premises Rowlands bases his argument, so I don't know yet if they're false. He refers to intrinsic properties, but doesn't define them rigorously. I'm hoping that he'll soon give us more detail.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-83022627521586859932008-03-06T08:54:00.000-07:002008-03-06T08:54:00.000-07:00Interestingly (from my point of view), I take mora...Interestingly (from my point of view), I take morality to be a relational property.<BR/><BR/>Value is a relationship between states of affairs and desires. Desires are propositional attitudes. States of affairs have value to the degree that the propositions that are the objects of the more and stronger desires are true in that state of affairs.<BR/><BR/>Morality is grounded on the relationship between maleable desires and other desires. We have reason to promote desires that fulfill other desires, and inhibit desires that thwart other desires.<BR/><BR/>So, I would say that Mark Rowland's arguments are grounded on a false assumption.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com