Joseph Sterlynne wrote:
> Brian Manning Delaney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Thanks for your comments (below). A few quick >> replies (though I think this is not a topic that >> interests most Extropians, so letting it die is >> fine by me).
> While it hasn't appeared that often in such a
> straightforward form I would be surprised if it
> were not of interest to many readers of the list.
> It is more or less philosophy of science, which
> certainly relates to many of the other topics
> discussed here.
That's what I thought too.
Didn't I say I'll "sign off on this topic?" You've been too civil and interesting for me to ignore. But this WILL be brief.... (I've got a lot of impending [and missed...] deadlines.)
>> There are thus several assumptions/notions, etc. >> whose truth obviously cannot be verified by >> science itself (like empiricism).
> See below.
>> How does one translate into empirical terms the >> question of the validity of empiricism? (Important: >> "validity" is not the same as "utility," or so I >> would [separately] argue.)
> Well, utility did come to mind. Perhaps it is
> only your parenthetical note which is
> contentious at this point?
I think this is the main open question, yes. I have not seen an argument that
validity (or truth) should be understood as utility that isn't circular. This is
the problem with pragmatism (especially the American variety). -->
-How do you know "It works" is a valid criterion?
-How do you know utility is what should count as validity (or truth)? "It works."
-How do you know "It works" is a valid criterion?"It works."
Something like that.
(An example of things getting off track here would be someone responding: "Yeah, but science DOES work!!" This isn't in question.)
Thanks again for your thoughts.
-Brian, Platonist, disguised as a Nietzschean (these days).