Hi David, > Sometimes your responses really puzzle me Brent. What you say above almost > makes it sound as though you just don't get the distinction Telmo is > pointing to. But based on what you have said at other times I think you do > get it, but because you also know that there's really no explicating that > distinction in a purely third person way, you sometimes want to say that > that's as far as explanation can legitimately go and the rest is just woo.
Thanks for saying. This puzzles me too. It's not just Brent, I know a lot of smart people that do exactly the same. > Cute but irrelevant. As has been said when we've discussed Telmo's point in > the past, the fact of the matter is that ontological reduction *just is* > ontological elimination. That's the whole point of the reductive project and > precisely therein lies its explanatory power. But somehow that same > ontological reduction doesn't entail *epistemological* elimination. There's > the rub. Precisely. For me, and for these reasons, emergentism in its current form is woo. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
