On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If you can explain what "axiomatic" means, I think you'll find it on the circle.
For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to human beings, which
could be explained in terms of physics, biology, and evolution (c.f.
William S.
Coopers "The Origin of Reason").
Well you appear to have defined it as necessarily true, which seems OK to me. But you
can't find it on the circle, because each part of the circle relies on the previous one.
So by your own definition there is nothing there that can seem necessarily true.
Only as *seems* necessarily true to human beings.
That is equivalent to postmodernist arguments that since everything is part
of a
linguistic web, we can't actually know or even surmise /anything/ about
reality.
Interestingly I am also engaged today in editing and essay by Vic Stenger, James Lindsay,
and Peter Boghossian which is intended to clarify the relation between philosophy and
physics. Something that was stirred up by Larry Kruass denigrating philosophy, at least
as applied to physics. In it, Stenger, who is as reductionist materialist as they come,
says we can't know anything about reality; we only know our models. I tried to get him to
change it.
No it's not, because it's not just words. For example, the explanation of
biology
in terms of physics depends on scientific propositions which are
hypothesized and
test in laboratories.
I'm afraid it is, because it is free floating in exactly the same way that Pomo suggests
all our explanations are. Each step relies on the previous one. There is no point at
which you can claim the circle is anchored in reality.
Do you thing strings are suitable to anchor reality? Or set theory? I think they are
anchored in experience and reason. That's how you'd explain string theory to someone;
you'd tell them about the particle data and mathematics. But the truth of string theory
is much shakier than the existence of what it purports to explain. I think parts of the
circle, where science is well developed, are anchored in correspondence with facts.
Post Modernism is more than Coherentism
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/). Pomos hold that reality is a
social construct which varies with society.
then for me at least it threatens to undermine everything else you've said,
some of
which I thought at the time was quite sensible.
Apparently it can't undermine your confidence in judging what is sensible.
No. Or my ability to spot snide remarks.
Too bad.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
