Re: Epistemology 101
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/28/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- In reply to: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:09:17 GMT
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:03:05 -0000, "John Morrison"
<john.morrison@tesco.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:16 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
>> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>> Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Epistemology 101
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> (Positivism)
>>>>
>>>> Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except
>>>> the absence of self contradiction, one is forced to fall back on the
>>>> idea of utility as the basis of epistemology.If one cannot judge
>>>> truth one must judge value.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Zick - are you still stooopid? Here's an easy one for you. Pick
>>> one:
>>>
>>> 1) Zick is correct.
>>> 2) The balance of reality is correct.
>>>
>>> Choose wisely.
>>
>> Hi Uncle Ox. I choose both of the above as mutually inclusive.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>
> And there was I, thinking that positivism was merely an outrageous trick
>perpetrated by the bald on the wise - who would then tear out all their hair
>in all-too-comprehending despair and disgust. From Auguste Comte to the
>Wiener Kreis (and on!): ouch!
Philosophers have always been interested in divorcing reality from
truth.The problem is they had no way to figure out what they had left.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- In reply to: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: John Morrison: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
