Re: new to list

From: David G. McDivitt (
Date: Sun Aug 26 2001 - 13:00:32 MDT

"What if" scenarios have nothing to do with it. 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is superseded by something else.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.

The debate has its roots in the beginning of scientific exploration,
where it was believed natural objects exhibited behavior through will
and obedience to god and other mystical authoritarian forces. Authority
established knowledge. By challenging authority it was seen a string of
logical premises could be constructed to describe or explain the
behavior of natural objects.

Realism represents a plateau in this development. Yes, cause and effect
are acknowledged rather than mysticism, but not how cause and effect are
no more than logical arguments to describe specific functionality.
Realism then, is an ideological reversion back to a time before science
even began. How much of realism implies concepts of origin, identity,
authority, or even god in some way or other. Countless times when I have
debated a realist, the debate finally comes to rest on the significance
of ontology alone, spirituality, or religion.

I wish to make an assertion regarding the value of unqualified logic,
without regard to how it may affect existent realistic perspectives. I
wish to say logic is logic only, and has nothing to do with reality,
except to say reality is constructed on logical premises. Logic and the
ability to think must come before reality, else we are robotons and

Consider the new knowledge being formed today. How arbitrary it is.
Tomorrow many of these premises shall be the realism people debate with
then. But is it real today?

>From: Loree Thomas <>
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
>The acceleration due to gravity on this planet existed
>before there was any individual to believe in it...
>and didn't change with changing beliefs as our
>understanding evolved. Even if we come to a radically
>new understanding of what gravity is, it won't change
>the fact that the acceleration due to gravity on this
>planet is 9.8 m/s/s.
>It's fun to play with "what if" scenarios where
>reality isn't fixed... that it depends on viewpoint...
>but that is all it is... play. If you try to live
>your life like that you end up a Scientologist... or
>Real knowledge is based on real facts... ones that
>don't depend on faith... that are always the same no
>matter who investigates them.
>Pseudo knowledge (much psychiatry, much sociology, all
>religion) is based on beliefs. Don't let the
>adherents of those dubious bodies of "knowledge" fool
>you with terminology, they don't have facts but
>beliefs. And when you stop believing, that
>"knowledge" does fall apart.
>The ability to distinguish between reality based facts
>and belief based "facts" is something that our current
>educational system fails to teach to most students.


_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free address at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT