Hello everyone On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:39 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Pirsig: > > "This is the usual argument against the philosophic idealism > that is part of the MOQ so it had better be answered here. > It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and > nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic > answer of the idealists is, “What tree?” > "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence > of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would > vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has > already been presupposed. > "This presupposition is a standard logical fallacy known as a > hypothesis contrary to fact. It is the “hypothetical question” that is > always thrown out of court as inadmissible." [LILA'S CHILD annotation 80] > > Ron comments: > In the context of "the historical response of the Idealists" (of which is part > of the MoQ)it is to be clear about the context of the conversation, since > a hypothosis always deals with presuppositions it only makes sense to follow > through > in the logical consistancy within the context and that they only work as > hypothisis if > they are taken to follow the patterns observed in experience. > The people throwing out hypothisis based on the fact that they are > hypothisis are positivists > the aggressive sort which tends to take the tack that if it is not directly > observed > that it does not exist. Pirsig is saying that the type of question is thrown > out not hypothetical > questions in general. > > According to Pirsig that which has value exists. In that order, if a > hypothisis has value > (the sort of value that is consistent with experience) and has been tested in > experience > ie. trees make sounds when they fall and dog dishes continue to exist , then > the hypothisis > certainly IS admissable because it also holds the power to make accurate > predictions in > experience. > > Positing that trees dont make sounds and dog dishes vanish run contrary to > patterns observed > in experience it is the logical fallacy which is the "hypothisis contrary to > fact" it is also a positivist > position. > > ..Which begs the question as to why , exactly, Dan brings this into the > discussion with Matt to > support his contention. Unless Dan is saying that Pirsig is supporting a > positivist point of view > in regard to biography and historical context.
Dan: You have misunderstood the discussion, Ron. I didn't say that trees don't make sounds and dog dishes disappear. I asked what did Robert Pirsig mean by: what trees? I asked how to empirically verify the existence of trees or dog dishes when we don't experience them... when they are imaginary. You have miscontrued what I said. We are on completely different pages so far as I can tell. Thanks anyway, Dan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
