Re: Coextensive properties?

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 10/12/04 

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:56:43 +0100

In article <itWad.248243$3l3.165680@attbi_s03>, patty
<pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>patty wrote:
>> Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:08:25 GMT, patty
>>><pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
>>> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neil W Rickert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my estimation, Bill, extensionalism is just neo positivism in drag.
>>>>>> David doesn't deal in explanations because that would be intensional.
>>>>>> He only deals in history and citation of other peoples ideas because
>>>>>> history can take place without him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> History and citation are also intensional.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every context is intensional. This notion that there is a
>>>>scientific context in which identicals are substitutable salva
>>>>verite is a 19th century pipe dream.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Unfortunately, it is a pipe dream that cost twentieth century
>>> science dearly.
>>>
>> Well it was only a hankering for absolutes, a desire for order, a
>>natural abhorrence of chaos, a pacifier replacing a absentee God, and
>>a swaddling cloth for an a baby culture crawling up from the slime.
>>I truly think that history will take that attitude. Today science is
>>still our God, a science which yet discovers and unmasks mysteries.
>>But in the distant future it will be more about what is possible and
>>what we can create.
>>
>
>PS: Woops ... almost forgot to make my point explicit:
>
>We will have a science where intensional contexts are their
>relationships to each other are understood and manipulated rather than
>being shunned in favor of some mythical overriding extensional context.
>
>patty

It's hardly worth re-iterating I guess and you pay no attention, but
you're just meaninglessly stringing words together that you don't know
how to use properly. You don't know how to use them properly because
when you use them they don't refer to anything. Like Zick, Michaels etc,
you're reduced to writing metaphysical poetry at best, and it's not very
good as it just creates "mental cramp" in those who know better, and
perhaps some head whirls in those that don't. What you're collectively
doing is turning the newsgroups into vehicles for a form of "mental
masturbation". That's a behaviour in itself of course, a bit like
head-banging or spatting, but it's no more than abusing language, so
don't kid yourselves that you're doing anything other than behaving as
delinquents. 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Coextensive properties?
    ... patty wrote: ... >> science dearly. ... > natural abhorrence of chaos, a pacifier replacing a absentee God, and a ... being shunned in favor of some mythical overriding extensional context. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
    ... David Longley wrote: ... >> Just my opinion, Patty, but you are much too modest and have let ... >> what science is, what empiricism is, the sciences one can study at ... comes up to Emma Thompson and Emma is playing a homeless crazy person ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: the separation of logic from the application of science
    ... David Longley wrote: ... >> We are talking about logic and the application of logic in science. ... >> There is no folk psychology in an appropriate study of logic. ...
    (sci.logic)