Re: The Lord's Natural Philosopher
- From: tadchem <tadchem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:51:31 -0700
On Oct 14, 4:50 am, "Jong Kim" <rh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Excepting any Pavlovian Dog, there can be no difference between
"philosophically true" and "factually true":
<snip>
Borgemoi!
How many lies are published in the American media *daily* because they
are "politically correct"?
Empistemology!
People who consider themselves philosophers (and are also so
considered by many others) have spent millennia debating the nature of
"truth" and what we really "know" and how we know anything.
Last time I looked, they were still at it.
Each seems to be discussing what are prima facie distinct concepts,
yet all are given the same names. It is a morass of equivocations.
A semanticist would be forced to point out that if there were only one
such concept, it would need only one name, so none of the
epistemologists has a handle on what "truth" is in a way acceptable to
his/her peers.
In short, the term "true" has not yet been clearly, unambiguously, and
acceptably defined.
By extension, all words which are defined in terms of the word "true"
are equally vague.
The truth is that we don't know what "the truth" is. The vast
majority of human endeavor that is not directly involved in survival
and reproduction is to some extent a search for "the truth" - from
science to religion to New Age 'metaphysics" and Medieval astrology.
(So far, 'science' has been producing rapid, repeatable, and
cumulative gains.)
As a practicing pragmatist, I have found it is necessary and
sufficient to accept as an *operational* definition of "true" the
equivalent phrase "empirically, independently, and reproducibly
demonstrated."
To even make a workable claim to being 'true' a statement must be
Falsifiable (it must be conceivable to perform an empirical test of
its truth), Logical (it does not violate basic logic), Comprehensive
(it must account for all relevant data), Honest (it must not rely on
disproven or false data), Replicable (it must be independently
demonstrable by even skeptics), and Sufficient (it must not rely upon
other unknown, unproven or unprovable elements).
The following link may be helpful:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
- References:
- Re: The Lord's Natural Philosopher
- From: Jong Kim
- Re: The Lord's Natural Philosopher
- Prev by Date: Re: Light Falling, Light Accelerate
- Next by Date: Re: Hurricane Expert Calls Al Gore's Theory "Ridiculous"
- Previous by thread: Re: The Lord's Natural Philosopher
- Next by thread: Re: Gravity Waves and the Speed of Gravity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
