I suppose the subject handle still fits?? The promised letter to a moderator. I also wonder whether Archytas found that promised referennce to the brain? She fell into the leadership trap. Once you've collected enough followers or believers you're stuck in keeping them happy. Otherwise they peeve and walk off in search of another. I cannot imagine anything more like hell than untold pale imitations of one's fantasies. That offers an alternative definition of hell. They actually like it there as they get what they desire. Otherwise, why stay?
Paste> DEAR Maria, ARE you also the owner of the episteme group? I unsubscribed. I'm not interested in fitting into your intellectual comfort zone, since there's no such thing as an unbiased person. IF you so much as bothered to check out the points I make you'll find I'm right. As for 'Grounded' knowledge is mostly ungrounded in its foundations. It is made up from Freudian projections grounded in intuition ""Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. Rene Descartes. You won't find that in a UNI textbook. ""Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to Authority is not using his intelligence, he is just using his memory. Leonardo da Vinci " I find your opinion about me having opinions Hilarious. IF you choose to stay within standard science, I am not interested. I am into the new paradigm, which is still peddled in material hypothesis terms. You obviously have not researched it the way I have. My historical compass reaches back into the stone ages. My IQ is 215 give or take 40 points of fuzz. My papers usually range between 5 and 8 K, and I don't intend to do so in a list. I have several genius friends who don't go in for Collecting kudos. You obviously have not read Feuerabend. I started school at age three and at one stage taught Rapid reading to 160 Profs and lecturers at a University. They were all quite satisfied, except medical staff, funny that. I collect methods, procedures and theories. PROOF, as originated by Euclid, consists solely in order to ensure that the data or addenda adduced fit in with the known. Since you don't know me from a bar of soap, I can only LAUGH. But then the less well we know a person the easier to stereotype. POlitics makes great use of it. Proof ONELOok: "any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something." And what is truth", said Pilate. FACT is cognate to Feitico, meaning a fetish, and indeed to make a fetish of THE fact is funny because a fact is a PRODUCT of a theory and not before. Before that it is merely a percept, idea - from eidolon, whence also idol - or an observable, UNDER THE material HYPO-thesis, which is not provable. T.S. KUhN, [from memory] "in the absence of a theory or a candidate for a theory ALL of the data are equally significant." ( or: me> insignificant), they are mere data. This shows up well in, say, the case of the Redshift since being called in doubt, now having several candidates. THE same holds for most if not all other science's keyterms. THEORY derives from from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." I don't hold with post Education ACT, 1850 AD dogma. As for your advice not to rely on dictionaries. I used to crit dictionaries and know quite well how they are compiled by humans who are error prone. Samuel Johnson being questioned about his DictorionARY: "sHEER, BLOODY IGNORANCE, mADAM." I pick my authorities very carefully. In effect they are not MY authorities. The list of much derided vindicated geniuses is quite long. ""Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it." Niels Bohr; which needs intuition. ""Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Niels Bohr. CONTRARIWISE "the late Professor C. L. Kervran, stated the problem: “..the word “matter” has no exact meaning; we just do not know what matter is; we do not know what a proton or electron is made of; the word only serves to cloak our ignorance. Matter has not been proved to come from energy.” cf Deepak chopra & April Crawford. cf http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm In one sense matter is a form of energy, which is what our senses pick up. Scrodinger called them 'schaumkommen', translated as appearances, although mental foam is better. HINTZ PAGELS "We live in the wake of a physics revolution comparable to the Copernican demolition of the anthropocentric world -- a revolution which began with the invention of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first decades of this century and which has left most educated people behind" EHHH!!!! ""The basic rule of system theory is that, if you want to understand some phenomenon or appearance, you must consider that phenomenon within he context of all completed circuits which are relevant to it. Gregory Bateson "A Sacred Unity", Harper 1991 "We must assume behind this force [in the atom] the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -- Max Planck, accepting the Nobel Prize for Physics, 1918. "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics N B "..however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms." Nils Bohr The same holds for the Russians. I look up dictionaries in order to conform with that, it being the prevailing trope. In the context of THE material hypothesis, where my arguments being off the standard square, I find from Internet Enc> ""Transcendental arguments are partly non-empirical, often anti-skeptical arguments focusing on necessary enabling conditions either of coherent experience or the possession or employment of some kind of knowledge or cognitive ability, where the opponent is not in a position to question the fact of this experience, knowledge, or cognitive ability, and where the revealed preconditions include what the opponent questions. Such.... It should not, I dare say, surprise you NOT to find much on the faults and weaknesses of proof ETY: proof Look up proof at Dictionary.com c.1225, preove, "evidence to establish the fact of (something)," from O.Fr. prueve (c.1224), from L.L. proba "a proof," a back-formation from L. probare "to prove" (see prove). Meaning "act of testing or making trial of anything" is from c.1380. Sense of "tested power" led to fireproof (early 17c.), waterproof (1736), foolproof (1902), etc. Meaning "standard of strength of distilled liquor" is from 1705. Typographical sense of "trial impression to test type" is from 1600; proofreader first attested 1832. Numismatic sense of "coin struck to test a die" is from 1762; now mostly in ref. to coins struck from highly polished dies, mainly for collectors. It actually derives from coining where one can still buy proof sets of new coinage from mints. I think that's long enough. adrian, Who will now go wash the bad taste out of his mouth. nominal9 wrote: > Okay ADRF: > My own background is more in the "humanities" and "classical > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
