On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:53:06 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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. > "But you own the original obviousness, that you can attach obviousness to your conclusions" was OBVIOUSLY meant to say "you do not own"
> > -- 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.
