|
|
 | | From: | Lester Zick | | Subject: | Re: Epistemology 102 | | Date: | Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:29:20 GMT |
|
|
 | On 3 Jan 2005 12:29:34 -0800, "Mike" in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Epistemology 102
>> --------
>>
>> (Scientific Truth)
>>
>> Last semester, boys and girls, we saw that positivism implies certain
>> things in relation to empirical knowledge. We found that science as
>> practiced in modern empiricist form relies on self contradiction for
>> its one standard of falsification and has no other test for truth.
>>
>[snip trolling]
>
>You are misguided. Modern science relies on Logical Positivism, that is
>the combination of empirical knowledge with the tautologies of math and
>logic and declares as meaningful only those proposition that are
>comprised by these elements.
>
>You have missed the target by miles and you are yourself the collateral
>damage. If your intent was to propose an alternative to Logical
>Positivism, you must understand first what it is all about.
Why? If I can prove alternatives are self contradictory, then, to
paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, what is left must be true however
ridiculous it appears. In point of fact no one really understands
logical positivism either. People understand the rules posited by
logical positivism. And that's the complaint you have, that I don't
follow the rules prescribed by logical positivism because I know
better.
> Obviously,
>you seem not to understand both the subject but also the rules of
>philosophical reasoning.
Thank you. You, on the other hand, are very well versed in the rules
of philosophical reasoning but don't have a clue because you are well
versed in the rules of philosophical reasoning.
> If positivists deny the meaning of some
>metaphysical assertions you cannot use such assertions to deny
>positivism unless you can prove them, and thus you become the
>positivist's prisoner.
Well, one of us certainly is. You mean I can't deny the assumptions
positivists use to deny metaphysical assertions until I can prove the
metaphysical assertions I make whereas positivists don't have to prove
the metaphysical assertions they make?
>Positivism is a very powerful concept because it relies on observation.
Which is what, exactly?
>The problem is not what you think.
The problem is that I think and you don't.
> It's whether all knowledge can be
>deduced from empirical observations.
Can you be deduced from empirical observations?
> But this is not even what
>positivists claim.
Positivists only claim self contradiction as the basis of invalidation
in science.
> The only claim they make is about meaningfull
>propositions.
And what, pray tell, do they mean by meaningful propostions?
Uncontradicted propositions, perhaps?
> Try to understand this. The goal of a positivist is not
>to become omniscient (as it seems to be yours) but to remain
>meaningfull.
Meaning without truth? Oh, that's just jolly.
> Thus they reject metaphysics: Carnap Rudolph, The
>Rejection of Metaphysics. Do yourself a favor and read it. Maybe that
>will prevent you from trolling for a while.
As music does you. Unfortunately, not quite enough.
Regards - Lester
|
|
|
