Re: Epistemology 101
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: Ron Sperber: "Re: I need FALSE PROOFS!!"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Characterization of an Open Set in the Reals"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> writes:
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
><snip>
>> But what is the basis for "truth"?
>I don't understand this question.
You have stated the problem quite succinctly. I look forward to
your solution.
> What could possibly be a
>'basis' for truth? A higher truth? A truism? The context was
>Science.
Some philosophers seem to write as if truth is determined by the god
of their atheism, and piped directly into the immaterial substance
of their non-existent spiritual soul.
The theologians at least have somewhere to point when asked for a
basis for truth. But where does the secular philosopher point?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.91 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFB0GYNvmGe70vHPUMRAtibAJoCJD9b1XjwQ6ZNES8UoqFievh/LgCeJNGA
oioPWiCrT7eK1tIyyVluG00=
=wgVp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: Ron Sperber: "Re: I need FALSE PROOFS!!"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Characterization of an Open Set in the Reals"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|