On Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:17 PM David G. McDivitt dmcdivitt@yahoo.com
wrote:
> You have shown no explicit contradictions an anything I said.
You made the asked us, in your Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:00 PM post, to:
"Consider each fact we hold dear in terms of the sociological environment in
place at the time that fact came into being. Consider whatever political and
religious controversies. The point is, any arbitrary fact or piece of
knowledge could have been constructed at that time, and what was constructed
met the demand and dynamic nature of that environment. If constructed
knowledge proves useful, can be built upon, or in some other way exhibits
survivability, that knowledge remains. If not it goes away and is superseded
by something else. The knowledge we have exhibits the exploratory and
adaptive nature of mankind. We manufacture knowledge to meet our needs and
wants rather than discover it."
There are several claims made in this quote. Let's separate them.
One is that "any arbitrary fact or piece of knowledge could have been
constructed at that time..."
Another is "what was constructed met the demand and dynamic nature of that
environment."
Following all this is "We manufacture knowledge to meet our needs and wants
rather than discover it."
Now this last claims is an time of knowledge, right?
Is it true? If it is true, then it must apply to itself, right? If so,
then it must be manufactured and not discovered. Yet knowledge that is
manufactured is really not knowledge at all. Instead, it merely suits some
other purpose.
Or do you mean your statement to apply to only some subset of knowledge? In
that case, then we could focus on the subset that it does not apply to. In
fact, if it only applies to a subset, then the claim is much less bold and
becomes a truism. (Just like "Some of what you believe right now is false."
Does this statement mean anything goes or that everything you believe is
false? Or that there's no way of separating truth from falsehood -- however
rough or fallible?
If it is false, then your whole rant is false.
But even more to the point, how would you know it is true? You would need
to know something about reality and something about knowledge of reality?
Why would you need to know? To even make sense of the statement, you have
to be able to compare a given item of knowledge to reality and show that a)
it enhance survival or is otherwise useful and b) that it does not
necessarily match reality. Usefulness is a fact, too, as is
"survivability." In order to know if something is useful, one must have
some knowledge of the things it's useful for.
All these claims commit the genetic fallacy -- or what Rand called the
fallacy of the stolen concept. (You don't have to accept her other views to
accept this fallacy as a true fallacy in reasoning.) This means, simply
put, an idea which denies that on which it logically depends.
> That a
> person uses semantics to criticise semantics is in no way invalid. What
> do you suggest I use?
I suggest you clean up your logic.
> I ask you again to justify your criticism.
Again, I have. That Lee Corbin number my criticisms seems to show someone
else got it too. (It would also be nice if you followed his formating
suggestions. It would make it easier for others to read your posts.)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "Perception and Realism" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Percept.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT