Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Even This

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 21, 2001 15:18:34 UTC

Luis,

>>>H: ”There isn't a complete philosophical account of science as a superior epistemological enterprise…” L: Right, and there isn’t a Klingon version of the King James Bible. However, I don’t think Biblical scholars are too concerned.>H: ”(‘Satisfying’ and ‘complete’) don't mean the same thing and I'm afraid that something being complete is much more of a demanding requirement than something satisfying certain conditions.” L: In other words, the conclusions of a discipline are ‘satisfying’ if they conform to the methodology and metrics of the discipline within which they are drawn. But, as you say, so what? If this is your definition of satisfying, then numerology is just as satisfying as science, philosophy, and religion.>H: ”My exact position is that antirealism fails in particular areas where realism does not.” L: Simply put, antirealism fails to ascribe metaphysical meaning to assumptions. Therefore, you and I define failure in drastically different ways: I define failure as soliciting an unsolicited claim that inductivist deductions (a.k.a. assumptions) are ‘real’ (or ‘real enough’); you define failure as the tendency to hold agnosticism as a philosophical foundation.>(In fact, since we’re apparently free to tell each other what we ‘must’ do, you *must* explain why it is not okay to be agnostic about assumptions.)>>L: Neither antirealism nor realism can offer a complete account of science and mathematics as we experience them. It is illogical to complain about a philosophy’s incompleteness from the position of an equally incomplete philosophy. H: ”...This amounts to extreme skepticism but it itself is not justifiable.” L: A questionable assertion. In fact, you *must* justify this statement.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins