No worries. I see you have plenty to respond to
sans me. I do not know if what I say is actually in line with Percy on the class relations of science and empiricism or not. Your response to me in the past appeared more direct than the few less than substantial ones I have recorded from Percy before.
I was simply trying to show that empirical investigations (my use of EVC being one) ARE distinct from rational and revelatory ones.
It is the case that I
quote:
Part of the problem is the notion of "information entropy" and other kinds that Gladyshev discusses. I do not hold it against anyone for not taking the more proactive position on Gladyshev's work as I do as I still struggle to get the clearest possible intuition of the affect on populations. Javaman expressed this opinion to me on EVC before as well.
(
I could not retrieve your post to me with the Search function nor with GOOGLE)
now have a "clear" intuition to this affect but making it spell words for you may be difficult, I do not know.
I understand that this post was in response to another discussion. I was simply tying to justify your stages of empiricism in a reality EVC readers could have experienced if they so choose.
The thought process involved more rationally or biasedwise in some streach of 3-D space between quaternions and mutations is like
quote:
P. W. Bridgman(2) observed, in 1961, that thermoelectric phenomena require the phenomenological description of e.m.f to allow for two different kinds of electromotive force, one that provides what he calls the "working" e.m.f, and the other that provides the "driving" e.m.f, for the thermoelectric system. The "working" e.m.f is responsible for the production of the total energy that emerges from the system, while the "driving" e.m.f is responsible for moving the charges in the system, giving rise to the electric current. These two e.m.fs, traditionally considered the same normally in electricity, are not the same when including thermoelectric effects. Bridgman invents a thermodynamic construction to define these two phenomenologically required e.m.fs, but he emphasises that since these are constructions they are not directly observable. Here we find an alternative explanation of Bridgman's idea of the two e.m.fs, on grounds much more fundamentally linked to the electromagnetic equations than to just purely thermodynamic arguments.
quote:
http://www.hypercomplex.com/...h/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html
but now your third condition would be the first of other two. In other words the sense becomes difficult to seperate from the reflection and judging.
My initial reaction to Dr. Gladyshev's contacting me was to question if my seemingly more directly electromagnetic speculations (of Maxwell on EVC etc) trumped his more thermodynamic ones. I came to realize biologically that this was not necessary but explaining how the quaternions and panbiogeography are not simply a joke is no small task. You may think that his work is just a clamoring for attention but I FOUND it squarely inside my own biophysical conceptual nexus. This was lacking in discussion with Cornell professionals.
Now what is possible for me is to go from the uncertainity of the third stage back to a more certain sense reception (by displaying the differences of the two emfs on the sibling ostracod to challenge the ESS view following an experimental setup that applied in nature addresses speciation via dispersal vs center of origin), and from there either finding consensus or not.
This is DONE however by using extra empirical-studies-time. It is no magic bullet train but I did not expect to see thermoelectricty a consequnece of quaternionic thinking. Circling empiricism with personal attempts work every time as long as the figure and ground are clear. Science via empiricism (Kant's "horizon") can change the base-time from which your conditions apply, but then we have differences of opinion IN empirical science rather than revelation. There is a time for rational extensions without revelation perconcieved.
™ Version 4.2
