On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
[SP, in response to Tom Caylor]:
> > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential.
> > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a
> > closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have
> > at least one fixed point that is unexplainable".
>
> This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all
> foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without
> explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as
> mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation,
> e.g. "...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty."
>
> Brent Meeker
>
But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation?
It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making
predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer),
but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the
interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will
not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is
metaphysics rather than science.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Feb 24 2007 - 22:01:29 PST