|
|
 | | From: | Lester Zick | | Subject: | Re: Epistemology 102 | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:53:57 GMT |
|
|
 | On 4 Jan 2005 05:44:43 -0800, "Mike" in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>Speak about yourself. You don't understand Logical Positivism and as
>some other poster noticed you confuse positivism with empiricism.
I did speak about myself.
>> 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?
>
>State a metaphysical assertion positivists make. I start getting th
>feeling you don't even understand the meaning of 'metaphysical'.
And you do?
>> The problem is that I think and you don't.
>
>If you think that just thinking is enough to get you through the maze
>of philosophical reasoning you are mistaken. GIGO means garbage in -
>garbage out.
Which in your case seems to have been changed into nothing in
garbage out.
>> Can you be deduced from empirical observations?
>
>Hmmmmmmm... I get the point now. You care about the essence of
>existence. You think the essence of existence is a subject of empirical
>observation. Hmmmmm.... Crank Alert
>
>> Positivists only claim self contradiction as the basis of
>invalidation
>> in science.
>
>You are wrong. But again, self contradiction is much better than
>reductio ad absurdum, per se. The former is a much stronger case in
>philosophical reasoning, the latter very weak.
And the exact difference between self contradiction and reductio ad
absurdum would be?
>Positivists employ contradiction that violates the tautology of the
>excluded middle, a self-evident axiom of categorical logic and
>propositional calculus in conjuction with empirical facts. This is a
>very powerful method to validate the soudness of physical theories.
>After arriving at a contradiction confirmed by observation the theory
>is abandoned.
So where are these contradictions confirmed by observations exactly?
>> As music does you. Unfortunately, not quite enough.
>
>If you like to rap, this isn't the proper place to do it. If you want
>to learn, some here can try to help you. It is obvious from your posts
>that you are confused about the concepts you employ. Before you can
>claim some new idea or approach you must understand what many succesful
>people in these fields have done and said about these concepts.
You keep repeating this like some mystic mantra. Does it get truer
with repetition?
Regards - Lester
|
|
|
