Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:07:49 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:21] The Realist Postulate (was: epistemlogy) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD: I don't know what it is about pen-l that gives people the license to pretend to read my mind and think they know what my attitudes are. And to do so with such _certainty_! despite rejecting ontological realism! I guess it's easier than responding to what I said above. This gets us back to what I said before (in my discussion with Ricardo in this thread). The "RP" is NOT about the _content_ of the multiverse that exists "out there." Strictly speaking, given "epistemological skepticism," we don't _know_ what exists "out there" (i.e., the content). The "RP" doesn't say _anything_ about the content. Rather, it simply says that there is a reality out there which is the basis of our (flawed) perceptions. RD: You just don't get it: if we don't know the content of what exists out there, and our perceptions of what is out there are flawed, why should we adopt the "out there" as the *basis* of our knowledge? To this question your answer seems to be that we must assume, postulate, the existence of a reality independently of us if we are to have a rational discussion. But in that case it is not a reality out there which is the basis of our knowledge, but our assumption that we must postulate such a reality in order to have a rational discussion. Are you tempted to turn to a strictly naive realist position now? is our http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
