|
|
 | | From: | Lester Zick | | Subject: | Re: Epistemology 101 | | Date: | Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:22:15 GMT |
|
|
 | On 28 Dec 2004 11:08:33 -0800, "Mike" in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> In effect, scientists can readily explain what they don't know; they
>> just can't readily explain what they know. They explain what they
>> don't know through self contradiction. They just don't understand the
>> mechanism for what they do know in relation to other things.
>>
>
>You should know you are using the same verb 'explain' to have several
>different meanings in your statement above:
Yes, well, I rather have a problem using words with multiple uses.
>> In effect, scientists can readily explain what they don't know
>
>You mean make hypotheses about what they know. Nobody can explain
>something they do not know anything about simply because they do not
>know what it is in the first place.
I'm glad you cleared that up for me, Mike. I love it when people
explain to me what I'm saying. Most people can't even explain what
they're saying much less what I'm saying. So refreshing.
>> they just can't readily explain what they know
>
>You mean explain in an ontological sense. They do not care as long as
>prediction matches observation through well-defined measurable
>quantities.
So, now, scientists are fortune tellers? The only well-defined things
quantum theorists have is pi, Planck's constant, and cardinal
numerality. That isn't prediction, it's educated guesstimation.
>> They explain what they don't know through self contradiction.
>
>Nobody can explain anything s/he does not know. You probably mean they
>falsify using contradiction.
I strongly suspect the two are identical in meaning.
>> They just don't understand the mechanism for what they do know in
>relation to other things.
>
>Does what someone knows have a 'mechanism' in relation to 'other'
>things? Hmmmm....what that might be? Interesting....Hmmmmm
Sure.
>Listern Zick, do I have to know the mechanism of the relation to other
>things to drive a car from my home to McDonalds and get a burger, fries
>and cola? Do I have to know the mechanism in relation to 'other things'
>to get a probe to Mars?
I'm quite confident you prefer guessing.
>All you have to know and understand is a good science theory
It might help to have some good science first.
> which
>makes solid predictions that are not sunject to falsification by
>experiment.
So far. Of course, it might explain why Pioneer 10/11 weren't quite
where solid predictions not subject to falsification predicted they
should be.
> Leave the relation of the mechanism to 'other' things to
>God or nature of unicorns or better ask your local priest and he'll
>have a good answer to you right away about that relation and mechanism.
How bout I leave it all to smoke-and-mirrors word merchants like
philosophers the way musicians do.
Regards - Lester
|
|
|
