once I 'learn' about what you imply as 3rd pers. theory, my personal
interpretation absorbs it (partly, distorted, or perfectly) as MY 1st pers.
knowledge. It ENTERS my knowledge and from there on I can formulate my
'theories' (models) about it. Whether it is true or not.
So when I hear you saying that the moon is a big lighting ball, I know so,
it is not 'outside' my circle of information anymore.  3rd pers info is not
a catalyst, it is an addition. (Right/wrong, accepted/rejected).
Sorry for the NESS after 'nothing-'.  I don't look for a model when there is
nothing to be found. Theory? maybe<G>.
I drew a parallel (with the differences pointed out) between religion and
science in an earlier draft. Of course both are belief systems. And I don't
think I am talking about 'theology' when I say religion. "Th-y" is a
reductionist science of a non-science. It is the speculation about the
belief. ONE belief. It tries to apply secular thinking to mystical stuff: an
oxymoron. In the logic of the believers.(Oxym. No2). The Greeks were honest:
their gods cheated, lied, were adulterous, raped and stole etc., just as the
humans they were simulated after. The JudeoChrIslamics retained mostly the
vainness: fishing for praise, the uncritical obedience,
(religio?)chauvinism, wrath and punishing, vengefulness and a lot of
Science is subtle: the potentates just prevent the publication, tenure and
grants for an opposing point-of-view - the establishment guards its
integrity against new theories (enlarged models).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Le 07-oct.-06, à 22:24, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

>     "my" reductionism is simple: we have a circle of knowledge base
> and view
> the world as limited INTO such model. Well, it is not. The
> reductionist view
> enabled homo to step up into technological prowess but did not support
> an
> extension of understanding BEYOND the (so far) acquired
> knowledge-base. We
> simply cannot FIND OUT what we don't know of the world.
> Sciences are reductionistic, logic can try to step out, but that is
> simple
> sci-fi, use fantasy (imagination?) to bridge ignorance.
> I am stubborn in "I don't know what I don't know".

It is a little ambiguous, but if by "I" you refer to your first person
view I could agree with you.
But for the 3-person view then, once I bet on a theory I can bet on
what I don't know. Example.

If I just look at the moon without theory, I cannot know nor describe
what I don't know.
As soon I bet on a theory, like saying that the moon is a big ball,
then I can know a part of what I don't know (like is there life form on
that sphere, or what is the shape of the other face of that sphere).
 From a third person point of view, a theory (a model in your term) is a
catalyzer for knowing we don't know much, and then formulating problems
and then solving some of them or sometimes changing the theory (the

> Jump outside our knowledge? it is not 'ourselves', it is ALL we know
> and
> outside this is NOTHINGNESS for the mind to consider. Blank.

In which model (theory)?

> This is how most of the religions came about. Provide a belief.

Scientific theories also provide beliefs.
Theology has been extracted from science for political purpose (about
1500 years ago), just to give "name" for what is really economical if
not just xenophobical conflicts. The same happened in the USSR with
genetics. No discipline, even math, is vaccine against the possible
human misuses.

> PS Er..., to Markpeaty and other readers of Parfit: I think that his
> use of the term "reductionist" is misleading, and due in part to his
> lack of clearcut distinction between the person points of view.

Well said.


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

Reply via email to