Krimel, Platt, Ham, The thread I saw, went ..
[Ham] You are an objectivist who speaks the language of Science. Metaphysics is not now, nor was it ever, "testable". It is precisely this "modern usage" of objective data that has blinded us to philosophical enlightenment. [Krimel] I know you are but what am I? Metaphysics that are not testable are irrelevant. It is just snake oil. Philosophical enlightenment? OMG is that a joke or something? Is that what you actually think you are selling? Honey, please... [Platt] > Spoken like a true believer in scientism. > Not sure exactly what the label "Scientism" means Krimel, but I find myself agreeing with Ham and Platt. I'm not defending Ham's essentialism, but a metaphysics is not "testable" in the falsifiable "scientific method" sense but is indirectly testable by its fit with everything else observable, and all manner of related inductive and deductive reasoning. Precious little is "testable" in the real world, the world is not a science lab, so it's a non issue. To recognise that, is "enlightened" in the sense Ham used the phrase you dubbed "snake oil". Platt, and Ham I'm sure, fall on pseudo scientific logic when it suits their rhetoric, everyone does - it's our "addiction" to the objective argument. It's very hard to avoid, if you want to sound serious and credible - a problem I don't suffer from in DMB's eyes ;-) Now what was the actual argument ? Ian 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
