Re: Epistemology 101
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: tbonepower07_at_gmail.com: "Re: I need FALSE PROOFS!!"
- Previous message: uma_hill_at_walla.com: "Re: FLT AND ITS GENERALIZATION, BEAL'S CONJECTURE"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:21:01 +0000 (UTC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
><rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>But what is the basis for "truth"?
>The only possible basis for truth is the mechanical reduction
>T:[not][not not] because this tautology is not regressable.
But that leads to a completely solipsistic notion of truth. The
world is irrelevant. All you do is apply logic to a set of starting
assumptions. There is no way to contact reality.
> In other
>words, every true and false relationship has to be compounded of this
>mechanism because represents the only way empirical observations can
>be linked to one another.
You assert a connection with empirical observations, but you do not
say what that is.
>Scientists can readily explain how they falsify empirical observations
>in terms of one another.
Which is to say that scientists do have some basis for truth other
than what you asserted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.91 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFB0IrKvmGe70vHPUMRArd+AJ9YNYxhFXPVJSaX0Hp0go4kreTqdgCgtRwM
+ZyKrTo0/ZOqAM0KF08CfxA=
=f4kg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: tbonepower07_at_gmail.com: "Re: I need FALSE PROOFS!!"
- Previous message: uma_hill_at_walla.com: "Re: FLT AND ITS GENERALIZATION, BEAL'S CONJECTURE"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 101"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|