I'm going to nit-pick a little here, since the "Poor Epistemological Standards" title is so ripe for criticism. But with a smile on my face, I'm not here to insult anyone, really, I'm new to "Google groups", and haven't posted anything yet, so why not start here...it's an interesting line of thought...
On Aug 18, 12:51 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > You don't hear that phrase [I'm assuming "Poor Epistemological Standards"] > often, do you? No, you don't. And I believe the reason for that is, anyone who even uses the term "epistemological" is not likely to try and frame the concept in such an informal way. Try tweaking the phrase. Is 'standardization' something you can 'do' with epistemology??? The word _means_ "theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope." Theories can be falsified, but rarely 'proven'. Any scientist will tell you that the theory that the sun will rise tomorrow is ... 'falsifiable' ... and nothing more. Just because it's happened throughout all of recorded human history, don't mean it'll happen tomorrow! Do you think it is > appropriate to say that a group/category of people has "poor > epistemological standards" when that group/category has a history of > making wrong decisions with a strong sense of conviction? For > example, consider jurors and judges convicting defendants who, after > years in prison, are exonerated by DNA evidence. Who would you fault here? The judge, who's supposed to instruct the jury in the correct application of their decision making talents, within a very narrow range, dictated by the particulars of the case, and the laws that are thereunto applicable? The jury, who may or may not have been given all the facts upon which they are expected to adjudicate? The prosecutor, who may or may not have an ulterior motive in presenting the case in the way that he or she does? There was recently a story in the news about pervasive, pernicious, legally questionable problems with the _entire_ North Carolina crime lab system. What do you do there??? And, what about > government officials who wage war because they falsely believe that > there are "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Can you think of a > better phrase to describe them? Absolutely. The phrase/word is "mistaken". Since the whole flap is mentioned here, I can't help but comment on the fact that _ALL_ of our 'allies', (I use that word in place of "NATO allies", because I'm not sure that all of our 'allies' in the conflict _were_ 'NATO'), anyhoo, ALL of our allies had the same incorrect information sitting in front of them, and the powers that be, in _EACH_ of our 'allies' respective governments, decided that the information was 'actionable'. They _ALL_ made the same mistake, based on incorrect information. Time to stop blaming George W. Bush for a MISTAKE that ALL of the 'involved' world leaders made, agreed upon, and took action as a result of... jdg -- 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.
