You are on page 1of 2

Addendum to A Response to Twin Earths as Crucial Experiment by Narve Strand

Although Strand has updated his paper, the basic aw in his presumptions remains. In fact the paper would make no sense without this awed presumption. The basic aw is that things in the scientic experience have validity outside that realm of experience. Despite all the rationality available, Strand is viewing things of chemistry as equivalent to realities out there now that derive from the biological realm of experience. i.e. despite the rationality of science, Strand is being irrational in treating chemical models as equivalent to things experienced in the animal realm of realities out there now. Since despite our rationality, we remain animals, we have a desire that our things be relevant in other realms of experience, but scientic models have no relevance and therefore no meaning, inherent or otherwise, in the biological, common sense, dramatic or other modes of experience. The claim that the scientic realm is more real is no more than a bigoted claim. In fact of the mode of experience the scientic realm by its own standards has the least claim to evidential truth. Since we cant observe molecules directly, in the case of this thought experiment, the evidence is indirect. The biological mode of experience doesnt require observable evidence, since its validity is demonstrated by the ability to survive as individuals and species. The dramatic, in a similar manner, has a demonstrated validity in the efcacy of interpersonal relationships and political action. Common sense shows its validity in our ability to get on with things in a concerned, coping manner. Only the scientic view requires observable evidence, and by that standard it falls short at demonstrating direct validity. As a biological, common sense, or a dramatic thing, water has valid meaning in terms of its biological necessity, our common sense ability to deal with acquiring and utilizing it, and the political and economic effects of water as an economic necessity and thereby a political lever. While the nature of the relevance, and thereby the relations, is different in each case, in each case the validity of the reference is demonstrable. But the chemical model of water as H2O or XYZ doesnt affect any of these things, since in each case the relations respond in the same way. The scientic model, demonstrable only in indirect ways, must show a different response to directed actions. Since these actions and the interpretation of the responses are on each Earth directed by the prevailing scientic assumptions, the different response is an interpretation of experiments themselves directed by the same presumptions. That these unquestioned presumptions, and therefore the experiments they direct and the results they help interpret might be different shows where the two Earths are not identical. To Oscars biological, common sense and dramatic experience of reality water is the same on both Earths. But it is in the minds of the chemists on each Earth, directed by different beginning presuppositions, that the interpreted results of directed experiments are different.

The result of the thought experiment is that, in this case, the biological, common sense and dramatic relations to water are validated relations, while the scientic relation has no necessary validity, nor can that validity in any way be fully established. Within the presuppositional scientic context of experience the results are validated as far as they can be on both Earths, the difference in results shows that the interpretations have no inherent meaning or truth, but only the relative validity of a predictively accurate model within the differing scientic experiences of each Earth.