Dear Stan,
You wrote:
On Mar 6, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>
> ... There can be no 'objective' knowledge of properties outside the material
> abilities of the knower. Bridgman was the most honest physicist! And von
> Uexküll was the best psychologist. There is no knowledge outside the knower.
> All is 'local knowledge' only. Yes, this is postmodernism. However, even
> with this viewpoint as a standpoint, one can proceed to do standard
> theoretical and philosophical work because, for example, the universe IS one
> of our equations! In postmodernism, scientific theory and philosophy become
> artistic achievements for their own sake, expressing humanity's, and more
> particularly Western Culture's imagination. The difference, then, is that in
> the postmodern view, there might be other perspectives, while in the standard
> scientific view there is only one true perspective, which frequently gets
> locked into repressive ‘bandwagons’ (as in Darwinian evolutionary biology, or
> general relativity cosmology).
Excepting for some complaint concerning the labels you choose (I don't see the
point of calling this fact "post modernism" or referring to scientific theory
as "artistic achievements"), and if I understand you correctly, I agree with
that there is "no knowledge outside the knower."
However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly uniform
and it is that uniformity upon which we rely.
At core, accepting potential refinement of the scientific method, I can't
imagine what "other perspectives" are allowed ... but, perhaps, that is my own
(positivist) intellectual investment. Your sociological comments do not
persuade me that there are alternatives.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
