DM, Well yes but I am still partial to a mild form of skepticism, call it critical thinking or avoiding gullibility. Micah seems on the extreme skeptical side and dmb on the extremely gullible side. I just like to keep Descartes and Hume in the background as reminder that there are limits on what we can know. I like Shermer's view of agnosticism as willingness to say occasionally, I don't know, without having to build a façade of smoke and mirrors.
Krimel ------------------------------------- Krim This is my point, we just get on with knowledge, we create concepts, we structure our experience, we use analogy, skeptism is sitting about moaning about a realm we have no access to, that is the bad use of metaphysics. Where we postulate stuff to fill a whole beyond our experience to make sense of experience is just good thinking. What use skepticism? Well, yes it has a use, to question bad postulates and suggest that there are better postulates. You can sit and worry about the value and uncertainty of our postulates but who wants to turn into Micah or DMB on his bad days? DM > DM, > > But if on one side we have TiTs and on the other our experience of TiTs > don't we have a gap. It's a bit like Bohr saying that science isn't about > nature it is about what we can say about nature. It would seem that a > proper > understanding of things would have to include both what we can say about > nature and what we can say about our ability to say things about nature. > > One of the problems we have in dealing with QM is that it is outside of > what > we are equipped by nature to understand. We have neither the sensory > apparatus nor the experience to deal with it. We are left trying to > express > it in terms we can understand, rather like trying to figure out how to > draw > a cube on a piece of paper only harder. > > Krimel > > ------------------------- > > Krim > > You need to have the subject on one side > and things in themselves on the other to see > formalise the gap over which you need to > find a sure path. No gap no skepticism. > Heidegger and Wittgenstein addressed SO dualism > because they wanted to get over skepticism. > > DM > > --------------------------- >>> [Krimel] >>> You only get SOM when you relax your skepticism long enough to allow >>> objects >>> into the picture. >> >> DM: I'd suggest, you only get skeptism if you adopt SOM. >> >> [Krimel] >> I am not following you on this one. Surely you are not saying that SOM is >> the only world view that invites critical thinking. My point was that >> solipsism is a form of extreme skepticism. >> > 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/
