On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a > rather rambling post on epistemology? > I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the word with no baggage allowed. I see it as potentially one of the really hard scientific obstacles in human discovery of the nature of reality. Hard because the sciences corresponding to this matter are far too early in the process of science to offer reliable knowledge. Certainly one choice is turning to philosophy. But the decision itself to do that, implicitly assumes an answer to the original fundamental question the scientific revolution threw up, which all other philosophical questions about science derive out of. Which actually begins as an obvious observation that no one has ever disagreed about: that something historically unique was happening with science, of a fundamental nature. It's the answer to that question the philosophies disagree about. More precisely, it was how to reason the matter the philosophies disagreed about, given it is reasoning by which one philosophy distinguishes itself from another. The general problem I have with that process, arises from the fact the question being asked was "Is there a component of this historical uniqueness that is fundamental to science and only science" Doing philosophy on that question, implies that that question can be resolved by non-scientific philosophy, which implies if something was fundamental and totally unique to one thing, it could nevertheless be fundamentally discovered and understood by something else that did not contain anything of that thing being understood. I don't think that makes sense, not in the end. Because it is assuming the answer is NO, nothing was unique about science and only science. I think that about this much, we should be in agreement, because you draw on precisely the same insight, but in a different context, that computability pre-requires sameness. Albeit that's only a core agreement. It doesn't mean that I apply it correctly, or that you do. We don't have to agree about that even if we do agree about the fundamental insight. Because how something is applied is fundamental in its own right. By the same coin we can agree that you draw on perceptions that are obvious, and which do say something true. But that does not mean we will agree about how that truth needs to be treated and applied. I seriously fell off my chair laughing at your response here Edgar. Just stop for a moment, and see this from an equally true alternative angle. What are you drawing on is obviously true. But it's obviously true to everyone. You don't own the obvious part Edgar. We all own that part. What you own, is how you apply it. You own your methods. You own your reasoning. You own your conclusions. But you own the original obviousness, that you can attach obviousness to your conclusions. That you cannot do. Or you can, but you won't be taking rationality or logic with you. So you won't be taking other serious thinkers either.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
