I certainly won't argue against your assertions without
knowing their justifications in the book. I shall only
point inline to one or two things IMO missing in the
summary, but indispensable to understand it.
Georges.
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
=================
G:
Before talking about "ways of knowing" it seems advisable
to understand what is "knowledge" and what can be known.
In other terms epistemology must be founded in some
ontology, or it is indeterminate and meaningless.
Could you briefly outline the ontology underlying your
epistemological endeavor?
=================
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.
=============
G:
"Reason" is one of most manifold and muddled terms.
What do you mean by it?
=============
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.
==============
G:
I complained above about missing ontological foundation.
Your last lines seem to fill in this lacuna providing
a base sounding like Naive Realism.
Is that your founding ontology?
If not, where did I get wrong?
==============
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
