Re: PHIL: Justificationalism (Was: Dynamic Optimism as a tool in logical reas...

Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 18:24:25 MST

In a message dated 1/16/2000 12:13:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

> necessarily relativized to your
> conceptual scheme, your starting assumptions, and basically what you bring
> to the table. (

Except that they, the relativists, are not scientists or philosophers of
science. Can you name one either way? They "give up" on Hume's problem --
that hardly solves the problem. And, PCR/CCR has _no_ first principles at
all. . . that is the answer to relavitism's claim that nothing can be proven
without unjustified first assumptions. They saybecause of that we can not
prove our own existance. They basically believe that NO knowledge is
possible. Relativism is absurd.

They claim theoretic statements are not and _can not_ be true, a rational
language of science is not possible, and unobservables (e.g., atoms) do not
exist. They are opposed to Realism, Instrumentalism, and Descripivism. So
what are they left with? I do not know.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT