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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
