tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post146356220205226182..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: Weinburg Inspires Sailer to Flaunt IgnoranceAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-14281918570304847412010-02-23T08:43:12.974-05:002010-02-23T08:43:12.974-05:00"I read the whole blog entry and I gotta say ...<i>"I read the whole blog entry and I gotta say I feel lost about the main purpose of it,"</i><br /><br />Yeah, so am I, really. I wrote it partially trying to find the thread, because I think there's something there, but it doesn't seem to have worked. <br /><br />I wonder if that means Sailer's original piece lacks focus as well, substituting an illusion.<br /><br /><i>"assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence."</i><br /><br />Like I haven't read Kant, I haven't read Descartes. (I've been messing around with the Cogito a lot lately.) It's really pleasant to watch him be on the ball. <br /><br />Physics of course really doesn't care which entity comes before another, but in the mind, it is incredibly helpful to place logic into a hierarchy.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-23402398255611716472010-02-22T09:58:20.214-05:002010-02-22T09:58:20.214-05:00I read the whole blog entry and I gotta say I feel...I read the whole blog entry and I gotta say I feel lost about the main purpose of it, although I gotta say I don't know anything about that Sailer guy and what is it you disagree with him.<br />Even if I didn't get it all, I loved your comparison of current philosophy/positivist establishment and the Sophist's position at Socrates time. I must say it really feels that way when I compare some of my unpopular philosophical positions with the status-quo.<br />The scientific method is actual the versatile idol of Scientism, the way the engrand themselves above the other "spurious" knowledge. When you read the first chapters on Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" it is as clear as day. The actual logic the positivists were using to explain knowledge were as flawed as a child's belief in Santa Claus. And logic was not discovered by the scientific method, whatever that is.<br />I actually read Descartes on the scientific method and it is essentially so simple as to be obviously what everyone that was advancing in life was doing exactly that, he just put it in writing with a style extremely simple and advanced for his time. Remember that most literature those days were poetry. So Descartes was remarkable because he wrote the same way he would explain his ideas in the day's vernacular. People felt imediatly attracted to that intimacy and clearness.<br /><br />"The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.<br /><br />The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.<br /><br />The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.<br /><br />And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted."<br />-Descartes, Discourse on the MethodD12noreply@blogger.com