Hi Harv,

>> You accept the notion of adaptation leading to success in a new evolutionary terrain, correct? And you accept the notion of genetic mutation leading to an adaptation, correct? Where is the problem as you see it? Is it how biological drives evovled (e.g., sex drive, survival drive, emotional drive, etc)? > Just to be sure, you aren't talking about the foundation of our knowledge in terms of knowledge as the world really is (i.e., ontology), correct? You are referring to the foundation of knowledge that we happen to treat as knowledge (i.e., epistemology), correct? Usually the later is referred to as a justification of knowledge rather than a foundation (I'll explain later). The only kind of knowledge we have justified assertability is pragmatic knowledge. I think pragmaticism gives us only an indication of the way the world is (hence the reason why I am a sophisticated realist). Unfortunately, I cannot prove my sophisticated realism - I can only say it is the best argument available. >How do you build knowledge out of nothing?>>And if knowledge is not built from nothing, what is it built from?> A foundational approach, in my opinion, is a metaphysical approach since you always are asking what is the foundation of that, and then that, etc. > On the other hand, if you seek justification then you simply want to know based on our pragmatic success with something (e.g., scientific discovery and scientific predictions) we are justified in attributing this piece of knowledge to this phenomena. If the justification is strong enough, then we can rest at ease. To those who need ontological foundations to knowledge, then they won't be able to sleep - but, why should they since such knowledge doesn't appear feasible.

• Let's clarify more - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
  • Progress indeed - aurino - July 25, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
    • Information comes from trial/error (learning). - alexander - July 25, 2001 - 18:07 UTC
    • More clarification needed - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 18:18 UTC