(Untitled)

[dangerzooey]

A Robust Theory of Epistemological Relativism and How It Does Not Imply One Can't Be WrongThere are some basic normative prerequisites to scientific method which all of its followers accept. Among these are Hume's Uniformity Principle (that the future will be and that the present is like the past), Occam's Razor/Parsimony (that the simplest

Comments

[cb4260]

That was SO FASCINATING and thought-provoking! :-D

[dangerzooey]

Thank you! I aim to please (so long as aiming to inform entails aiming to please)!

[demoivre]

So are arbitrary distinctions bad? Physics is indeed built upon arbitrary distictions--I often wonder what physical "laws" and constants we would have arrived at if, for example, we had arbitrarily decided to use a base-twelve number system--but I guess the real question for me is: does it matter? Personally, I have been puzzling over the issue of how science--and other things--are taught, ie presented in a "dumbed-down" fashion and then, slowly "de-dumbed-down" as each student progresses in his or her education. I acknowledge that, for example, presenting junior high school students with Newton's Three Laws in vector or even differential form is pointless, but I think that students should be informed that they are being taught the "watered down" version.* Now, I'm not attacking your essay--on the contrary, I loved it and have been sitting back thinking about its implications off and on while typing this--but I'm uncertain as to...well, to be honest, I'm not certain of what I'm uncertain. I have been wrestling with something like

[dangerzooey]

Arbitrary notions aren't bad, they just don't seem conducive to our notion that for any proposition about the world, it is true or it is false (and not both) and there is no proposition that isn't either true or false. All the more reason to reject these notions from science altogether, I say (and maybe the term "truth" along with it).

(I'm fairly sure that the bias to think of truth in this way is a condition that is rarely made outside philosophy and mathematics, but is fairly firmly entrenched in there.)

[demoivre]

Ah...I agree with this. Truth/falsity does seem to have its place in both math and formal logic. In fact, I would say that the ONLY place truth/falsity should be found is in pure math and logic--in the sense that both pure math and formal logic can be abstracted from the "real" world.

[dangerzooey]

What about impure math?

[oikade]

Oooh, this makes me uncomfortable.

Just to make sure I haven't misunderstood you, would you mind giving me a definition of truth that goes a little farther than what I can glean from this?

Also, what would you consider to be knowing/knowledge - to meet the right criteria to say in a strict sense "I know x".

I do like the line "science is nothing more than cognition" though. ;)
Fun!

[oikade]

BTW, if you're sick of talking about it - I see you've got more commentary here now than when I first clicked, and I saw you posted to real_philosophy as well - no worries. I will survive! :)

[dangerzooey]

LOL, I can't keep up with these comments! I just told you to go there...hahaha!!

[dangerzooey]

Don't fret too much. Understanding this proof depends quite a bit on the terms "science" and "truth". "Science" here means a system invoking a factive theory. (Factive = aimed at creating/discovering facts vs. Normative = aimed at creating/discovering norms). As for "truth", I'm using the analytic notion of truth-relative-to-a-theory, so every unique science has its own notion of truth, in which every claim that could be made in that system, it is either true-in-the-system or not. (For some more insightful analysis of my claims, see the over a hundred comments in the post to real_philosophy.)