Science Forums 2

[Overdog]

Doctordick, I have a few more thoughts regarding your work. I admit I can't follow the logic, but assuming it is irrefutable, here is my opinion, which I also admit with my limited understanding may be completely off-base.

In my view, there is an epistemological philosophy of one sort or another behind the way we view theories which purport to address ontology (reality). We get to choose which philosophical position we take, all the way from objectivism to radical constructivism. Constructivist theories of knowledge of course drop the notion of objective reality out of the equation entirely, just as notions of the "ether" were dropped in the paradigm shift to relativity.

In that respect, I see your work as showing that any theory purporting to address ontology, when viewed in terms of an objectivist philosophy of knowledge, inevitably leads to the conclusion that whatever it is we think the theory says about about objective reality, it is, in the end, revealed as unknowable, and therefore an assumption.

Did I get that right?

Because if I got that right, then I do not see why your work should not be recognized as a nail in the coffin of objectivist philosophies of knowledge, and viewed perhaps as a cornerstone of constructivist epistemological theory!

Am I missing something here?