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 ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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_model Nick? -- 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
