On 13 July 2014 17:18, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb <[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. >
As opposed to what? Do you have access to something other than human beings to check what seems necessarily true to them? > 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. > ??? I thought you'd agree with that. What else can we know except our models (plus experimental data used to test them) ? > 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. > Well, perhaps you can explain in more detail. This is looking a bit like that hand waving I was worried about, when you start asking rhetorical questions as though they explain something. Never mind what I think, explain what you think. > > 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. > > I was talking about a particular branch of pomo, I guess what should be called Wittgensteinian (I forget if it's the early or late W). But what pomo does or doesn't do doesn't make the "free floating ontology" (as you originally presented it) any better anchored. > 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. > Yes, sorry not to just agree but kick back. Must mean I exist or something. -- 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.
