----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
> > In the real world nobody refuted the argument. But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of course you can refute arguments you disagree with. Refutations of arguments require agreed upon presuppositions. In science, falsification of a theory is fairly straightforward, because of the agreed upon test for science: models of phenomenon. The tabling of the question of the validity of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to the development of science. But, in the case of metaphysics, it is much harder to agree upon presuppositions. Indeed, one finds them creeping in by the backdoor in many arguments. Further, one often finds strong disagreement concerning the reasonable conclusions one can draw from presuppositions. For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by biochemistry. Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. I'd be willing to give self consciousness the exact same empirical standing as reduced mass, but no more. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
