JB> DM> FM> In reality, the configuration of being we know as "history" DOES
JB> DM> FM> clearly reveal that "values" vary from one configuration to
JB> DM> FM> another
JB> DM> FM> with NONE being final or if any were human consciousness could
JB> DM> FM> not
JB> DM> FM> know it as long as it exists within the time continuum of the
JB> DM> FM> cosmos.
JB> DM> FM> In order for any one of the configurations to be final we would
JB> DM> FM> have
JB> DM> FM> to know its end.  Clearly we do not because history has NOT come
JB> DM> FM> to
JB> DM> FM> its end in ANYBODY'S experience (except such ideologists as Comte
JB> DM> FM> and Marx).
JB>  Frank's argument falls into a valid -conclusive- (deductive)
JB>syllogism known as modus tollens.  He is saying:
JB>        (1) if we are to have "values" final configuration, then
JB>            we must know the end
JB>        (2) we don't know the end
JB>        (3) therefore, we don't have "values" final configuration.
JB>  However, Frank confused -deductive- arguments with the
JB>-inductive- one Charles is using.  Inductive ones are
JB>by defintion -not- final.
Which is exactly what Frank said.
Mathematics deals with "conclusions" and "proof" precisely because
mathematics (like logic) is an artificial construct independent of
messy reality.  But the sciences don't do "proofs," because no matter
how good your data, the dataset is never complete.
Frank pointed out that there is an amazing range of 'values'
seen around the world among human beings, and he refused to
label them according to some absolute deductive system.
So I could say that since Frank is observing messy reality
and not requiring it to conform to a priori judgements,
his is the inductive view here.
1) Crows are black.
2) Bird X is a crow.
3) Therefore Bird X is black.
That is logically neat, and also has nothing whatsoever to do with
the way science works in the real world.  In science you cannot say
"All crows are black."  But you _can_ say "All crows that I know of
are black."  Or, "All crows known to Western science are black."
In math and logic you can tie everything up neatly, but in observing
the real world, the dataset is never complete.  And as if to make
my point, there really are crows somewhere that are white.
Reality is too varied, weird, rich to be reduced to syllogisms.
In a sense that was Frank's rather inductive point.
Inductive thinkers can have a strong set of values while accepting
their variability around the world.  But in my experience deductive
thinkers who assume there must be an absolute set of values get
stuck in the assumption that these values are on/off binary --
that is, either this set of values is absolute, or there is
nothing, no values at all.
 * SLMR 2.1a * .        Brevity is the sole of wit. -- Wm. Tagspeare
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------