Dear List,
I wish to add a simple observation concerning the discussion of
realism and Arne's complete rejection of it. I advocate the solipsism
of logical positivism and place semeiotics first among sciences but I
consider Arne's rejection of realism to be incorrect, it fails to
allow the inference of reality from direct experience.
For example, I take it as a fundamental premise that any
communication requires the medium of reality - and thereby confirms
its being.
Nor do we have to adopt objective realism and reject solipsism. There
are clearly, from the point of view of my models at least, things
that have epistemological status (can be known) and no ontological
status (do not exist) - e.g., irrational numbers (and other
relations) and televisions - conversely there are clearly things that
have both epistemological status and ontological status - e.g.,
quantity (and other rational measures) and apples. Further, I can
establish criteria that allows me to distinguish between the two:
that which can be known and does exist, and that which can be known
that does not. If we do not allow reality then there is no means to
make this important distinction.
I prefer to accept the position that there is nothing that has
ontological status that cannot also be known - though I cannot be
certain of it in science since this would deny falsification - but
this allows the recognition that much of ontology is unlikely to be
available in my experience except by inference through reason.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
