![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Todd Gastaldo wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Gathering anecdotes is step one in doing a good study. No, gathering data is step one. Gathering anecdotes might be step zero, if it leads you to formulate a testable hypothesis. :-) Yep - that is what I was getting at - but gathering POWERFUL anecdotes reportedly helps to refute hypotheses. Sure, because it only takes one counterexample to throw a theory into question. But theories are never *established* on the basis of anecdotes. Hypotheses, yes. Theories, no. Throwing theories into question is an ongoing Step One (or Step Zero) of science. Absolutely. big snip Using intuition as a way to evaluate claims went out with Descartes. Just now I found this (perhaps erroneous?) passage from one fellow's PhD competency exam (he passed)... "Descartes seems to take for granted his intuition. So we can reproduce the large part of Cartesian skepticism on Neurath's boat. Devitt argues that since Cartesian skepticism is an unanswerable problematic, it is just uninteresting. But such an evaluation depends on what we accept as an answer. Devitt seems to think that instantaneous solipsism is unacceptable, but if the Cartesian skepticism really is an important question and the sole answer is the instantaneous solipsism, maybe what we should do is to find a way to go along with the instantaneous solipsism. Devitt does not provide any convincing argument to refuse this line of argument. Therefore I think that naturalized epistemology also fails to reject the skeptical doubt." http://www.info.human.nagoya-u.ac.jp...ield_exam.html What this guy is saying is that there may not be a way of defeating Descartes' skeptical arguments using naturalistic epistemology. I am not necessarily agreeing with that claim, but even if it's true, I would say that if you are going to take Cartesian skepticism seriously as a practical guide to what to believe about reality, you have to take it seriously *all the time*. Hey WAIT a minute! I never said it's a GUIDE for me! I said that Step Minus One of Science is the assumption that it isn't true! At least that's what I THINK I said (therefore I am I said - LOL). That means you have to admit that you don't know anything delivered by the senses, which includes believing things like both a) well-confirmed scientific theories like quantum mechanics and b) in the location of your car keys -- much less anything having to do with the paranormal. If you really think it's reasonable to treat all those things as on an epistemological par, then go ahead... I can't even PRONOUNCE "epistemological par"! Descartes' evil demon could just as easily trick you about your conception intuitions I am late this month - but I don't remember any unprotected sex - or any intutions for that matter. : ) as he could about your sensations (whether or not you're seeing the color blue right now and so forth.) I just read where blue is the color of the line that shows up on at least one pregnancy test. : ) Todd -- C, mama to two year old nursling |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Conception Intuition? | carl jones | Pregnancy | 48 | January 28th 05 12:05 AM |
Medication & Conception | Jennifer and Robert Howe | Pregnancy | 1 | June 9th 04 01:13 AM |
Conception date question | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 5 | March 30th 04 07:02 PM |
Weight at 20-21 weeks conception | Rupert | Pregnancy | 4 | August 14th 03 04:25 PM |