> I think this is wrongheaded.  You doubt that you really assume "things are
> how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and
> electrons don't appear at all.  What one does is build, or learn, a model
> that fits the world and comports with "how they appear".  I see no reason
> not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional,
> because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality"
> except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something.

And so that the model can be corrected, and so that reality doesn't
disappear when the model does....actually , there are
aquire a lot of reasons for believing in reality.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to