I really enjoyed reading your dialogue with Harv on this.
I'm glad you did.
After reading your posts, I see that much of what I previously thought was "pathological indifference" was actually just a rigorous skepticism that you were adhering to.
You should know you shoot yourself in the foot when you rush to misinformed judgements. I don't have to forgive your provocative behaviour as I was not upset by it at all. I don't mind being called a hypocrite, liar, or ignorant fool - I'm fully aware I'm all of those things. But to call me Christian, that betrays too much presumption. I'm still not sure what to make of it.
However, although I respect skepticism as a position, I think that when it comes to judging the validity of science to help us formulate a worldview, pragmatism trumps skepticism.
That is nonsense. Neither skepticism nor pragmatism can be used to formulate a worldview. I wish someone other than Dick Stafford could understand that.
** There is a huge world out there, and there is a small world of concepts inside our heads, and we are constantly trying to force-fit the former into the latter. It's obvious to me that such thing can't be done! A full, completely accurate description of the world must be equivalent to the world itself. Anything less is a lie of sorts.**
That is really an excellent argument against realism, and it would be one of the philosophically strongest ones. (Incidentally, I also see it as Dr. Dick's position).
But it's not an argument against realism! In order to prove "realism" wrong you have to show that the concept "realism" is not consistent with the claims realists make. Before you can do that, you must clearly define "realism" in so formal a way that even anti-realists and people who don't know what "realism" means would agree with the definition. A little thought on the subject would reveal the obvious: such a feat is just impossible!
If you want to understand the essence of my position, you have to understand why any philosophy contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It's not a problem with the philosophies themselves, but with the very act of philosophizing.
Now before you go and say you don't agree with some or all I said above, let me tell you in advance that neither do I! What I'm trying to convey cannot be conveyed with words. The thing that causes all philosophies to be self-destructing is also inherent in my explanation of my own philosophy. There is only one way to understand what I'm trying to say, which is by understanding why your own philosophy is broken and there's no way you can fix it.
Barring that, there are only two things we can do: have fun, or insult each other until the end of time.
I learned a great joke yesterday. Do you want me to post it?