Re: the *choice* between free-will and determinism: a reply

"Kevin Aylward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> darth_versive wrote:

<snip>

> > The above exchange is a good example of the subjective "problem of
> > frames" to which I referred in the above thread (Re: the science of
> > psychology and the psychology of science 2 of 2).
> >
> > Each side has "framed" the issue using its own conceptual framework
> > and terminology, and each interprets challenges and proofs in terms of
> > their separate frames.
> >
> > My own "frame" is that such frames themselves should be the focus of
> > research, although not from a standpoint which is itself independent
> > of frames (which others have attempted, but failed to accomplish,
> > since no perspective is frame-independent).  This is the tricky part
> > of the study of subjectivity:  how to study it while holding to a
> > subjective perspective of one's own.
> >
> 
> But I think its a bit more than that. My main thrust was stating what I
> perceived the facts to be. These of course, may be true or false. The
> axioms and deductions could be in error. However, the issue that Mickeyd
> brought up was not related to my scientific stance, as I see them, on
> the facts. He made a statement about me "...not accepting
> responsibility for the choices I made...", when I made no such
> insinuation. My argument was based on *why* things are the way they are
> from a scientific point of view, not whether or not one "should" in any
> human moralistic sense, absolve oneselves from reasonability for ones
> actions. Its a bit like if I simply *state* that blacks have curly hair,
> than making a following assumption that I would also claim that blacks
> should not be allowed to straighten it. The ideas are not simply not
> connected. One does not imply the other. It is something I have noted
> quite a bit about my papers. The inability to separate claimed facts,
> and opinions as to how one should use those facts. By and large, I make
> little claim on applications of the facts.
> 
> Kevin Aylward

I don't want to put words in Mickeyd's mouth, but I think that perhaps
you don't fully understand the sort of challenge which his RC (Radical
Constructivist) methodology poses to the sorts of axioms and
deductions that you are making.  I prefer to let you and him sort out
the details of that.

My point was that the interaction between his "frame" and your "frame"
is somewhat analogous to two people trying to carry on a conversation
in two different languages.  Each language may be using the same words
and may seem to be using the same syntax, but in reality the
definitions of those words and the structure of that syntax are
different in each language.  Therefore, each side doesn't really
understand what the other is saying, and responds to points that are
not really being made, while not responding to points that *are* being
made.

This is sort of what it's like with the subjective "problem of
frames," as I call it.  Read over the thread I mentioned, between
Mickeyd and myself, for a fuller context of this discussion over
frames.  My own frame involves a metaphysical realist presupposition,
while his involves a metaphysical agnostic presupposition.  In our
conversation, you can also see the subjective "problem of frames"
manifesting itself.  So I'm not singling you out for special
treatment.  It happens frequently when those using different frames
try to converse, especially on matters of basic methodology and
similar foundational issues.

DV