On Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:00 PM David G. McDivitt email@example.com
> "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 is superseded by something else.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.
But are you not making the claim here that this is objective truth? You are
making claims about knowledge that are either true or false. If they are
true, how can you know it, since you are conditioned by the same things.
(Knowledge is knowledge -- even knowledge about other knowledge.) Thus,
they're would be refuted. If they are false, then ditto.
> 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?
And also for this statement. Surely, some specific item or theory might
change -- as happened in the past. However, how do you know about such
changes? If you claim they are merely conditioned by your context without
regard to their veracity, then we can simply reject them as your fancies.
If, however, you claim to have knowledge here, then there must be some
contact with reality.
This by no means solves all epistemological problems, but it clears the path
to better understanding.
See my "Scientific Revolutions Reconsidered"at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT