Insight Chapter 3
Sku: 40100DTE050
Archival Number: A401
Author: Lonergan, B.
Language(s): English,
Decade: 1950
Open 40100DTE050.pdf

Description:

Typescript of chapter 3 of Insight. Almost entirely the single-spaced typescript characteristic of manuscript A. But several pages are replaced toward the end by pages from manuscript B (Batch 3), and some pages by handwritten pages. Originally still part of a document called Insight:Elements (as was the ms A version of chapter 2). Pagination: 38bis - 67.
Database and descriptions © Copyright 2017 by Robert M. Doran

Transcription:

pt 70, l. -15 (ts 38bis): ts has no comma after words
 
pt 70, l. -14 (ts 38bis): ts does not have the word `he'
 
pt 70, l. -11 (ts 38bis): ts: `There is a canon of complete explanation: ultimately science must account for all data; hence one may not say that colors and sounds, heat and electrical phenomena, have to be explained, for they are merely apparent, secondary qualities, while experienced extensions and durations do not need any explanation, any physical or natural geometry, for they are the real and objective primary qualities.'  This is changed by hand in ms B.
 
pt 71, l. 8 (ts 38bis): ts has `procedures'--no change indicated
 
pt 71, line 13 (ts 38bis): ts has comma after why
 
pt 71, line 14 (ts 38bis): ts has comma after improved
pt 71, end of introductory section (ts 39): ts has at this point another paragraph before the beginning of section 1.  It reads:
 
            `6.5                  Our study of empirical inquiry began with a consideration of Galileo's determination of the law of falling bodies.  After pointing out the similarities (6.1) and the differences (6.2) between such an insight and, on the other hand, mathematical insights, we drew attention to the clues or hints that lead up to the insights of empirical science, and we attempted outlines of the heuristic structures that develop into knowledge of classical (6.3) and statistical (6.4) laws.  By advancing to a slightly more general viewpoint, let us now endeavor to formulate the principal canons of empirical method.'
 
            The numbers are those of sections in the original document Insight: Elements, of which the material of this chapter is a part.
 
pt 71, subtitle (ts 39): subtitles are added by hand, sometimes replacing earlier enumeration in Insight: Elements (here 6.51), but at other times only with the new enumeration (as below, 1.1) typed in.
 
pt 71, l. -1 (ts 39): ts has `... all the correlations and theories that have been tried and found wanting that possess sensible consequences ...'
 
pt 72, l. 9 (ts 39): ts has a line drawn from `involved' to the right margin, where there is written: implied?  Is this what should have appeared--note the following line: `still grasping that implication ...'
 
pt 72. l. 14 (ts 39): ts has hod-men
 
pt 72, subtitle 1.1 (ts 40):  1.1 is typed, but the subtitle is added by hand.
 
pt 73, subtitle 1.2 (ts 40): 1.2 is typed, but the subtitle is added by hand.
 
pt 73, l. -3 (ts 41): no comma after place
 
pt 74, l. 12 (ts 41): ts has `None the less' for `Still'
 
pt 74, l. 15 (ts 41): ts has `... desire simply to know.  It is, then, not by any inert passivity, but by effort and training that the scientific observer becomes an incarnation of inquiring intelligence and his percepts move into coincidence with the data of sense.  There is an intellectual desire, an Eros of the mind; inasmuch as it is reinforced or inhibited by other desire, however specious, it is to be  one may not expect perception data of sense.  For there is ...'
 
pt 74, l. 16 (ts 41): ts has no comma after it, both here and in l. 17
 
pt 74, subtitle (ts 41):  ts has 2. typed in margin, but 6.52 in text, crossed out; subtitle is added by hand.
 
pt 74, line -9 (ts 41): ts has no comma after inversely
 
pt 74, l. -5 (ts 41): ts has `... and so generate additional laws. generate the revision or confirmation ...'
 
pt 75, l. 10 (ts 42): ts has no comma after Clearly
 
pt 75, l. -19 (ts 42): ts has `Inversely,' for `Hence,' with no indication of change
 
pt 75, l. -10 (ts 42): ts has `... in conspicuous failures the mistakes and oversights even slight ...'
 
pt 75, l. -5 (ts 42): ts has no comma after Hence
 
pt 75, l. -18 (ts 43): ts has `theories, and, not less, to provide ...'
 
pt 76, l. 1 (ts 43): ts: `and so to necessity'
 
pt 76, subtitle (ts 43): ts has 3. typed over a crossed-out 6.53.  Subtitle is added by hand.
 
pt 77, l. 3 (ts 43): ts had `... it also is clear ...'
 
pt 78, l. 14 (ts 44): ts had `... though it can be, in fact may or may not be.'
 
pt 78, l. -19 (ts 44): ts has comma after consists
 
pt 79, l. 17 (ts 45): ts has after the paragraph `Now, the ...' several paragraphs which are crossed out by hand.  They read as follows:
                        Next, what is verified is the formulation, and all formulations may be reduced to terms and relations.  Further, as has been seen, relations are of two kinds.  There are the relations of things to our senses and the relations of things to one another.  But all definition is some sort of relation.  It follows that, in general, there will be two types of terms, namely, 1) terms defined by the relations of things to our senses, and 2) terms defined by the relations of things to one another.
                        Now at this point it would be extremely convenient if it were possible to say just what is meant by the name, "thing."  Unfortunately that is a complex issue that must be postponed.  So, to obviate this difficulty, let us introduce the technical term, "conjugate," and draw a distinction between "experiential" and "pure" conjugates.
                        In general, then, conjugates are terms implicitly defined by their relations to one another.
                        Experiential conjugates are terms implicitly defined by relations of the first type that hitherto have been referred to as relations of things to our senses.
                        Pure conjugates, on the other hand, are terms implicitly defined by relations of the second type that hitherto have been referred to as relations of things to one another.
                        The meaning of the expression, implicit definition, has been noted already (2.8).
 
pt 79, l. -17 (ts 46): ts has no comma after senses
 
pt 79, l. -14 (ts 46): ts has no comma after respectively.  Also the words `or explanatory' are added by hand.
 
pt 80, l. 3 (ts 46): Again, the words `or explanatory' are added by hand.  A comma is added by hand after pure, but no punctuation after the handwritten explanatory.
 
pt 80, l. 11 (ts 46): ts has no comma after manner
 
pt 80, l. 15 (ts 46): ts has no comma after Now
 
pt 80, l. 18 (ts 46): ts has the following crossed out after the paragraph `Now such ...':
                        It may be well to draw attention to the versatility of the pure conjugate.  Just as it is defined initially by selecting some verified equation as basic, so the definition may be modified or enriched by the addition of further verified equations.  Thus, one might say that "mass" is defined implicitly by the laws of force, impact, the lever, and universal gravitation.  Moreover, just as Newtonian mechanics as a whole may be said to define "mass" implicitly, so the shift from Newtonian to Relativity mechanics will automatically effect the necessary redefinition of the notion of "mass."
                        However, there does arise a difficulty.  If experiential conjugates are obviously verifiable, pure conjugates, since they appear to be non-experiential, may seem to be non-verifiable as well.  Let us attack this fallacy at its root, namely, in its plausible identification of the experiential and the verifiable.  There are contents of experience and they are experiential in a rigorous sense.  There are combinations of contents of experience, for instance, an extension and along it a yardstick.  There are combinations of such combinations represented, for instance, by points plotted on a graph.  Thus, in a secondary sense of the experiential, there are combinations of combinations of combinations, &c. &c., &c., of experiential
 
pt 80, l. -16 (ts 47): ts has `...of finally a derivative ...'
 
pt 80, l. -3 (ts 47): ts has ` ...in the combination of combinations, &c. &c., of experiences.'
 
pt 81, l. 14 (ts 47): ts has no comma after case; same in l. 19
 
pt 81, l. -4 (ts 47): ts has comma after Thus
 
pt 82, l. 6 (ts 48): ts has purposes
 
pt 82, l. 10, subtitle: ts has no other numbers; 4.2 is typed, and subtitle is added by hand
 
pt 82, l. -11 (ts 48): ts has three paragraphs crossed out, after the paragraph `What, then, ...'  They read as follows:
                        Consider, then, the classification of questions.  There are questions for intelligence and questions for reflection; the former cannot, the latter can, be answered appropriately by a simple Yes or No; for example, What is the law of falling bodies?  Do bodies fall according to Galileo's law?
                        Secondly, questions for reflection can be pure or mixed.  They are mixed, if what is to be affirmed or denied is the answer to some question for intelligence.  Thus, if I affirm that in a vacuum bodies fall according to Gaileo's law, then I affirm the verification of the answer to the question, What is Galileo's law?  On the other hand, questions for reflection are pure if what is to be affirmed or denied is simply what can be meant only by affirming or denying.  Thus, pure questions for reflection are illustrated by asking, Did the apple fall on Newton's head?  Did any apple exist?  For then I am asking about occurrence or existence, about pure fact, about the ultimate increment that accrues to knowledge through the assent of Yes or the dissent of No.  Every occurrence and every existence has some specification, and that is known by asking the questions for intelligence, What is it?  What happened?  But once the specification is supposed, one can ask two questions, the mixed question whether the specification is correct, and the pure question whether an instance of the specification exists or occurs.
                        Events, then, are what are meant by answering pure questions for reflection affirmatively.
 
pt 82, l. -5, etc. (ts 49): ts has no quotes around Yes and No
 
pt 82, l. -2 (ts 49): ts has `... to answer either Yes or No.
 
pt 83, l. -13 (ts 49): ts has colon after verifiable
 
pt 84, subtitle (ts 50): ts has 6.55, crossed out, with 5. typed above it, and subtitle is added by hand
 
pt 84, l. 5 (ts 50): ts has no comma after sense
 
pt 84, l. 16 (ts 50): ts has `... were the merely subjective ...'
 
pt 84, l. -13 (ts 50): ts has no comma after Galileo
 
pt 84, l. -12 (ts 50): ts has `... if there were matter and motion and whether or not any animals with their sensitive experiences existed.'
 
pt 85, l. 4 (ts 50): ts has `heat, &c., &c,'
 
pt 85, l. -5 (ts 51):  ts has crossed out at this point an earlier start on the paragraph `Inversely ...'  It reads as follows:
                        Inversely, Galileo does not base his affirmation of the reality and objectivity of primary qualities by claiming that empirical science has verified or will verify them as he understands and defines them.  On the contrary, he does not await any pronouncement of scientific method on the issue; and if his followers do, then they have the choice
 
pt 85, l. -3 (ts 51): ts has `defined' for `conceived'
 
pt 85, l. -3 (ts 51): ts reads: `Accordingly, his assertion of that reality and objectivity was extra-scientific, for it made no appeal to verification and so did not satisfy the canon of parsimony.  On the other hand, anyone that today might try to bring the Galilean position in line with the canon of parsimony, would first of all have to settle an account ...'
 
pt 86, l. 4ff. (ts 52, 53): the typed version of manuscript A, through section 6.1, is discarded and replaced by two handwritten pages corresponding to what is in pt.  The discarded version is given above in A 386.
 
pt 86, l. -4 (ts 52a, handwritten): ts has `... only inasmuch ...'
 
pt 87, l. 1 (ts 52a): ts has no comma after Still
 
pt 87, l. 13 (ts 52b): ts has `make' for `makes'
 
pt 88, l. 7 (ts 53): ts has ... after C,
 
pt 88, l. 20 (ts 53): `It will follow that' and the word `that' before `statistical' are added by hand in ts.
 
pt 88, l. -5 (ts 53): ts has colon rather than semicolon after presentations
 
pt 89, l. 3 (ts 54): the word `merely' is added by hand in ts
 
pt 89, l. 10 (ts 54): ts reads, `... that we affirm classical laws to be abstract, and it is in this sense that a canon of statistical residues cuts a middle path between transposes the issue of determinism and or indeterminism.'  Changes are made by hand.
 
pt 89, subtitle (ts 54): 6.3 is typed, but subtitle is added by hand
 
pt 89, l. -7 (ts 54): no comma after Hence in ts
 
pt 90, l. -21 (ts 55): in ts the word `particular' (bis) is added by hand, as is the word `one' before `deals' (replacing `he')
 
pt 91, l. 2 (ts 55): ts has the following crossed out, as a first go at the first paragraph of section 6.4:
                        In the third place, an objection must be met.  Granted that classical laws, as we know them, are abstract, still we do not possess complete and exact knowledge of all classical laws.  As long as knowledge is incomplete, it cannot but disregard certain aspects of the data.  But by the sole fact that is is complete, no aspects of the data will be overlooked; and if no aspects of the data will be over-  Taken singly, classical laws are abstract  
 
pt 91, l. 9 (ts 55): ts had `complete' but this is crossed out and `concrete' is put in by hand
 
pt 91, l. 11 (ts 55): ts had `is' for `yields merely' but this is changed by hand
 
pt 91, l. -6 (ts 56): ts has comma after concrete
 
pt 91, l. -3 (ts 56): ts had `it also makes ...' but this is changed by hand
 
pt 91, l. -1 (ts 56): ts has `of world process' with no indication of change
 
pt 91, l. -1 (ts 56): ts has `process will be, not exclusively in terms of classical laws, will not be based ...'
 
pt 92, l. 3 (ts 56): ts has another beginning to paragraph 1, crossed out: `Facts force us to a scrutiny'
 
pt 92, l. 15 (ts 56): no hyphen in ts
 
pt 93, l. 4 (ts 57): ts has `settle any matters of fact'; the word `particular' is added by hand, but `settle any' remains
 
pt 93, l. 13 (ts 57): ts has `approximated to every classical law, ...'
 
pt 93, l. 14 (ts 57): ts has no comma after none the less
 
pt 93, l. 17 (ts 57): ts has the beginning of a paragraph crossed out: Accordingly, against the objection, there stands its internal inconclusiveness
 
pt 93, l. -11 (ts 58): 6.5 is typed, but subtitle is added by hand
 
pt 93, l. -10 (ts 58): ts has `... an attempt must be made to indicate more precisely both the indeterminacy of the abstract classical laws and the consequent statistical residues.'
 
pt 93, l. -8 (ts 58): ts has no comma after Hence
 
pt 93, l. -4 (ts 58): ts does not have the words `in the general case'
 
pt 93, l. -2 (ts 58): ts has 6.51 typed, and subtitle added by hand
 
pt 94, l. 10 (ts 58): ts has `... abstract classical law.'
 
pt 94, l. -8 (ts 58): ts has 6.52 typed, and subtitle added by hand
 
pt 94, l. -1 (ts 58): ts has no comma after P
 
pt 95, l. -18 (ts 59): ts has no `the' before nonoccurrences
 
pt 95, l. -7 )ts 59): ts has `... traverses either different distances with equal speeds or unequal distances with equal speeds.'  No change is indicated.