Hello Harvey,

Why talk about ontology or epistemology at all? That ontology is a metaphysical discussion was a main point in my previous post. Further, the incompatibility of epistemology and empiricism is an explored point in many of my posts. No one ‘knows’ reality, outside of some fundamental assumption, i.e., some theory.

~~~~~~~~~~

- The question ‘why is mathematics effective?’ is inherently ontological. By posing “why” – instead of “how,” for example -- you project meaning onto the effectiveness of mathematics. But mathematics does not impose this question upon itself. There is no postulate (that I know of) for, ‘why mathematics is so effective.’ The ontologist (sic) projects meaning onto mathematics with questions like this one.

- Observations are just observations. The tendency to step outside of observation, and anthropomorphize everything we observe, is an impingement upon empirical study.

- Godel's Incompleteness Theorem illustrates how ZFC is either inconsistent or incomplete.

~~~~~~~~~~

>>>”Well, couldn’t you say that about *any* scientific theory as well?”>”How would an observation be an observation unless meaning were somehow ascribed?”

• This is too tricky a subject.... - smartguy - September 11, 2001 - 01:58 UTC
  • This is where it gets trickier...... - smartguy - September 11, 2001 - 02:14 UTC
• re: Luis' nominalist realism - harvey1 - September 11, 2001 - 02:02 UTC
  • Not instrumentalism? Positivism? ;) - luis_hamburgh - September 12, 2001 - 03:04 UTC
    • Are you getting annoyed? - harvey1 - September 12, 2001 - 13:15 UTC
      • Correction - harvey1 - September 12, 2001 - 21:44 UTC
      • Coherence - luis_hamburgh - September 13, 2001 - 01:56 UTC
        • I'm not following you, I must have missed a dance step - harvey1 - September 13, 2001 - 03:35 UTC
          • This old dog is learning new tricks - luis_hamburgh - September 14, 2001 - 00:57 UTC
            • Who let the dogs out? - harvey1 - September 14, 2001 - 06:27 UTC
              • Innie or outie? - luis_hamburgh - September 15, 2001 - 01:01 UTC
                • guilty of contingency in axiom selection - harvey1 - September 16, 2001 - 00:45 UTC
                  • Pudding - luis_hamburgh - September 16, 2001 - 18:41 UTC
                    • slicing hairs - harvey1 - September 17, 2001 - 00:12 UTC
                      • Self-indulgence fuels pseudologic - luis_hamburgh - September 18, 2001 - 00:32 UTC
                        • Can cars run on this kind of fuel? - harvey1 - September 18, 2001 - 04:56 UTC
                          • More on ZF - harvey1 - September 18, 2001 - 12:56 UTC
                          • Incomplete vs. incomplete - luis_hamburgh - September 19, 2001 - 01:49 UTC
                          • Philosophical selections - harvey1 - September 20, 2001 - 01:28 UTC
                            • Satisfied - luis_hamburgh - September 21, 2001 - 01:09 UTC
                        • Even this - harvey1 - September 21, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
                          • Heavenly voice, but she could lose a few pounds . . . - luis_hamburgh - September 21, 2001 - 20:18 UTC
                        • More dancing - harvey1 - September 21, 2001 - 22:31 UTC
                        • More dancing - harvey1 - September 21, 2001 - 22:40 UTC
• Luis, you can know true objectivity - dolphin - September 15, 2001 - 22:45 UTC
  • Definition manipulation - luis_hamburgh - September 16, 2001 - 17:43 UTC
    • Quantum theory of knowledge? - dolphin - September 17, 2001 - 00:42 UTC
      • Incorect. Math COMPLETELY rules reality. - alexander - September 17, 2001 - 19:56 UTC
      • Peek-a-boo - luis_hamburgh - September 18, 2001 - 00:43 UTC
        • Let's here about your models.... - smartguy - September 18, 2001 - 01:29 UTC
        • One step at a time - dolphin - September 18, 2001 - 22:26 UTC
          • Let's remember guys'.... - smartguy - September 18, 2001 - 23:18 UTC