Okay, I will reluctantly summarize. I argue in the book that there are 4 ways of knowing: We are born with certain knowledge (Kant's a priori), we know through faith, we know through reason, and we know through perception. I argue that each of those ways is seriously defective. Not only should we not be certain about "knowledge" gained through any of those, we don't even have justification for being confident about them. I also note two paradoxes: first, although I criticize reason, my whole book is an attempt to persuade through reason. Second, although I fully believe what I wrote, I expect the sun to come up tomorrow and in all other ways live life assuming that things are pretty much what they seem.
On Sep 10, 12:27 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Tue, 9/9/08, fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > George: You wrote "I find there some loose talk about > > beliefs, but > > nothing referring to "Existence" or > > "Uncertainty"" > > That's what the book is about. Sorry, I can't > > summarize in a few > > sentences. > > =========== > My long scientific and epistemological experience tells me > that propounders of most complex theories could usually > summarize them in one or two concise sentences, or else > they usually did not know what they were talking about. > I may grant you a benefice of doubt, but it's not a good > advertising of your book. > > Once I asked for a trial run of a car and the salesman > told me: <First buy, then test>. > > Only he was joking. > > Georges. > ================ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
