On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My basic point is this: > > 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. > > 2. Description is subordinate to observation. > > 3. Observation is subordinate to experience. > > 4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience. > > Rex, While I don't dispute the validity of the epistemological axioms you start with, I think they are different from mine. I tend to agree with David Deutsch, who says this of explanation: "Explanations are inevitably framed partly in terms of things we do not observe directly: atoms and forces ; the interiors of stars and the rotation of galaxies; the past and future; the laws of nature. The deeper an explanation is, the more remote from immediate experience are the entities to which it must refer. But these entities are not fictional: on the contrary, they are part of the very fabric of reality." I see observation as an input to my subjective experience, which informs my mind and enables me to place bets on the probable validity of different theories. The theories may involve entities I cannot directly observe, and there is no reason I see that it cannot come full circle and inform theories about why I have experiences to begin with. Starting from your belief system, which places explanation subordinate to experience, description, and observation, I can see why you have arrived at the beliefs you have, and the only way to escape may be to change your epistemological axioms. BTW, I just noticed you have the first digits of Pi as part of your e-mail address. :-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
