Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on June 21, 2001 17:45:51 UTC


You keep bringing up the classifications "epistemological and ontological " as if they provide some magic division between thoughts. I have no idea what is in your head; I can only go by the definitions and usage I find. To paraphrase my position: epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge; ontology is a branch of "metaphysics" that studies the nature of existence. Metaphysics comes from the Greek for "beyond physics", the title Aristotle gave to his writings after his "physics". I hold the position that Aristotle would agree that ontology is governed by epistemology.

>>>However, what we 'feel' as making sense is based on some rather stark feedback from nature - that is, if we fail to connect with the way that the world presents itself.>>some definitions fail us so badly such that we cannot survive while other definitions allow survival?>You seem to be touting some form of antirealism, but such a scheme doesn't explain why some ideas 'work' better than other ideas.>The situation is not *that* severe (at least I don't think it is).>a priori knowledge of the world (not necessarily subconscious).>I say it comes from our evolutionary past and hence we have this knowledge as a result of the world (and not our willy nilly definitions).>Our logical explanations are founded on the same concepts that got us here - that is, the logical processes of nature.>The most consistent manner is one in which we treat reality as 'out there'.>you use those concepts to show that evaluating the meaning of various explanations is not possible>How do explanations become 'better' in your view?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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