tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5061516217951167083..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Here we go againUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7915350040117121682012-04-01T11:18:40.319-04:002012-04-01T11:18:40.319-04:00Leonard: re your footnote 8, "Raise your hand...Leonard: re your footnote 8, "Raise your hand...Good luck" etc... Care to elaborate? You were talking about knowledge, right? Maybe you are a specialist in ontological concerns as well. You tell me then, what it means for something to exist in a vacuum, let the hand be the only thing in our known universe. For all we know, it may or may not exist, but it might as well not exist right? And bringing physical science into the argument, it couldn't exist. That's the point of lowering the status of the objective (or disappearing it altogether) so it becomes very overshadowed by the subjective. Any way you slice your peanut butter and plato sandwich, the hand only exists as knowledge transmitted as information to other entities.<br /><br />That's why it makes no sense and is therefore nonsense to say 'X exists' instead of 'X exists for...'. In the case of ordinary everyday objects, ''X exists' is best taken as shorthand for 'X exists for 99.99997% of those for whom X is meaningful in some way'.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81021586070248997922012-03-28T15:19:39.903-04:002012-03-28T15:19:39.903-04:00The reason why this keeps cropping up is the same ...The reason why this keeps cropping up is the same now as it was then. In Scopes' time it was that too many of us were subject to, or subject to constituents who are subject to, "That Old Time Religion." That's the case now as well.ciceronianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79502297109652232412012-03-28T06:59:11.041-04:002012-03-28T06:59:11.041-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ghulam sarwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11057325267793062695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84186599316184351682012-03-27T12:42:21.498-04:002012-03-27T12:42:21.498-04:00While I agree with Finkleman's main point, as ...While I agree with Finkleman's main point, as evidence of evolution, he offers:<br /><br />"...it is the increase in average human height over the past two centuries;..." <br /><br />Is this really true? Auxologists claim that the role of genetics versus environment in the determination of height is complex. <br /><br />This is discussed in Walter Fitch's new book "The Three Failures of Creationism" -- see<br />www.threefailuresofcreationism.wordpress.com<br /><br />The book also deals with some of the fine points of the meaning of evolution as a "theory" -- among other science/creationism debating topics, such as the<br />"intelligently designed" concept mentioned by Kris. <br /><br />Many people don't know Fitch, who pioneered "phylogenetic trees" and was instrumental in developing techniques of using evolution/molecular biology to anticipate what types of <br />vaccines would have to be produced in advance in order to cope with ever-mutating viruses.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87439436553837619202012-03-27T05:33:59.902-04:002012-03-27T05:33:59.902-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233718606544577551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3785723374293020352012-03-26T18:01:51.767-04:002012-03-26T18:01:51.767-04:00"I’m probably not going out on much of a limb..."I’m probably not going out on much of a limb when I say that we should blame Plato for our current troubles." No, no - instead we should blame Platonists! Who were and are so myopic that they never appreciate that in his dialogues Plato himself NEVER speaks, and are so unaware of literary structure that they assume that what a character (usually Socrates) says is what Plato believes. Aristotle should have known better - but evidently didn't.<br /><br />And the JTB theory is spelled out in the Theatetus (knowledge = correct opinion plus an account/justification) much more than the Meno, and there Socrates rejects it! <br /><br />As a Plato aficianado I couldn't resist this comment - but otherwise . . . a very good article!Phiwillihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05434702023421961210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75209904404586439282012-03-26T17:40:13.159-04:002012-03-26T17:40:13.159-04:00Adaptive mutation theories posit intelligent desig...Adaptive mutation theories posit intelligent designing. So if it isn't accepted in biology, it's certainly 'acknowledged' (ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from the obsolete Middle English verb knowledge).<br /><br />And if 'knowledge' is:<br />"1 facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject;" <br />then perhaps we only need 'justified reliable belief' as the standard definition.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40730207238866056572012-03-26T16:09:42.358-04:002012-03-26T16:09:42.358-04:00"But that’s not our opposition’s target. They..."But that’s not our opposition’s target. They aim at evolution itself"<br /><br />Creationists do not believe in evolution at all. But Intelligent Design supporters actually do believe in evolution -- not in Darwinian evolution but in an "intelligently designed" evolution. ID doesn't meet scientific standards and isn't accepted in biology. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in school. Global warming on the other hand does not lack scientific support because there is very much evidence for it. There is much controversy about details (is the north pole ice free in 2100 or rather in 2050?) but not about global warming itself.<br /><br />Obviously(?) you take denialism of Darwinian Evolution for a much bigger problem than Global Warming denialism. Sorry, this seems to be typical American underestimation of Global Warming...<br />(I'm German btw.)<br /><br />"Ernst Mayr — perhaps the greatest popularizer of Darwinian theory in the twentieth century — claimed that “typological essentialism,” attributable to Plato by way of Aristotle (6), has been our greatest obstacle to general acceptance of evolutionary theory."<br /><br />Small note: I think this wasn't Mayr's idea but August Weismann's. He was also quite popular: "Ernst Mayr ranked him the second most notable evolutionary theorist of the 19th century, after Charles Darwin." (Wikipedia)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83109035914911476192012-03-26T12:39:48.010-04:002012-03-26T12:39:48.010-04:00You've put in a fairly firm observation/theory...You've put in a fairly firm observation/theory distinction there, and one quite high up the content scale.<br /><br />Evolution is a fact (and a theory) but isn't the description of the fact of evolution also a theory? It explains the sequence of fossils, that we need a new flu vaccine etc. etc. And those bits of data are themselves theories, explaining funny shaped bits of rock and lab reports on sick people.<br /><br />It feels more "facty" because you'd have to be even more stupid, ignorant or dishonest to dismiss the "fact" of evolution than the theory exlaning it.<br /><br />Isn't the key those statements that express "beliefs (that) are justifiably held, but only provisionally believed to be true"?<br /><br />And I see one huge problem in that epistemologists haven't analysed that: they just keep banging on (and on) about JTB! Surely it's time for philosophy to forget about factive knowledge and start considering what makes things:<br /><br />1. Not necessarily true, but<br />2. You are rationally obliged to accept themTony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.com