On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[SP, in response to Tom Caylor]:

> > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential.
> > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a
> > closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have
> > at least one fixed point that is unexplainable".
> This is somewhat beside the point anyway.  Positivists (and all
> foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without
> explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection.  Just as
> mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation,
> e.g. "...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty."
> Brent Meeker

But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation?
It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making
predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer),
but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the
interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will
not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is
metaphysics rather than science.

Stathis Papaioannou

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