Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Sorry to hear your story, things are certainly bad down there.

And they are not getting better very fast. My wife and I have just returned from a 30 day tour of the far east (scheduled long before Katrina showed up) and will be spending substantial time on the coast in the near future sans internet access so please don't expect any rapid responses.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Who doesn't? I still don't find much novelty in what you say.

I can only assume that you have not clearly comprehended the dichotomy I have attempted to bring to your attention. In this day and age, we have at our fingertips all the information we need to understand the true nature of reality and the answers to most all the philosophical questions which can be asked. What is missing is the fortitude necessary to examine what we know objectively and carefully. That examination can not be accomplished without a mechanism capable of maintaining the clear separation of the two phenomena above without neglecting either.

The common scientific method makes the assumption that all "squirrel conclusions" (that is, our instinctual beliefs) are valid truths unless they can be proved invalid: i.e., that our perceptions are correct so long as they cannot be shown to be illusions. This is clearly an invalid proposition which competent philosophers have pointed out on many occasions. However, the scientific position is to ignore the difficulty and proceed with "logical conclusions" on the presumption that those "squirrel conclusions" (the fundamental components of their world view) are correct. They derisively label any attempt to question that presumption as "solipsism" and utterly refuse to make any attempt to handle the difficulty.

Philosophers on the other hand, while deriding the scientists failure to handle the difficulty, make exactly the same error only in slightly different clothing. They make the assumption that they know what they are talking about: i.e., they fail to comprehend that the meanings they personally attach to the words they use are also "squirrel conclusions" (once again, instinctual beliefs) which cannot be proved correct (as regards the issue of communication). Their position is also to ignore the difficulty and proceed with "logical conclusions" on the presumption that those "squirrel conclusions" (the fundamental components they use in their arguments ) are correct (are providing a valid communication of their thoughts).

I hold that a "rational discussion" must include both components and cannot ignore the problems inherent in those "squirrel conclusions". In my opinion, any argument which presumes those "squirrel conclusions" are valid cannot be regarded as "rational" but is instead should be thought of as "emotional". I would tend to categorize most all discussions on this forum as fundamentally emotional.

The problem I am trying to bring to the forefront lies both in the scientific approach and in the philosophical approach, but I will excuse the scientists as they make their intentions quite clear; science is not concerned with truth but rather with "solutions" and the solutions must presume a problem (the problem is, of course, explaining their world view and, without a world view, no problems exist). I hold that the philosophical approach has gone astray because, if they also are going to consider only the "logical" aspects, they are providing nothing beyond the scientific approach and, under that constraint, the scientists are doing a much better job, leaving philosophy as a back seat issue. Establishing a valid world view is fundamentally a philosophical problem and I have some very important things to say on the issue.

Has anything I have said make any sense to anyone here?

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity