humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 11, 8:24 am, Fred Weiss wrote:
>On Apr 11, 12:03 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:

>....Of course if one is
> on the premise that previous knowledge is irrelevant to the pursuit of
> new knowledge, it doesn't matter.

And who might be of that opinion? Previous knowledge is
a marvelous source of conjecture. It can be negated, modified,
as well as built upon.
And - yes - sometimes it has to be discarded.

The ultimate test of the conjecture - whether from previous
knowledge - is agreement with observation.

> After all, it is turtles all the way down, i.e. knowledge is
> impossible anyway.

That would be "certain" knowledge.

As much as you may dislike it, even Aristotle and Rand
do not have certain knowledge.
...............

> > Because that's what certainty (in my sense) requires. If you favor a
> > certainty that can be wrong - as Fred does - then you don't need a
> > method that cannot be wrong. Indeed, all you need is a coin to flip.

> Of course there is a rather large range of other possibilities between
> "cannot be wrong" ("in his sense") and coin flipping - a distinction
> which Mark N. knows better than anyone since he has tried repeatedly
> to impress that upon him for years, but to no avail.

And yet Fred Weiss persists in arguing as if these
possibilities do not exist?

Probably I have different one's in mind from than he, though.

> In the meantime, it is still the case that cows *cannot* jump over the
> moon.

> I am *certain, Fred* of it.

Are you *certain, Fred* that Newton's theory of gravity is
not approximate?

> Of course, if Gordon, TeaCup, or any of the other pill Poppers have
> evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to look at it. I don't
> claim omniscience.

Then you admit it is possible that a cow can jump over the moon?
Make up your mind!
Are you certain that a cow can't jump pver the moon or not?

>If some new fact should emerge bearing on the
> subject, it would have to be considered. But in the absence of said
> fact, it is the case that one can be *certain, Fred* of it.

So you are not *certain, English*?
What use does *certain, Fred* serve
that "highly likely" does not serve?

> The fact that we *can be wrong* has no bearing on this issue.

If you want to make up your own language, feel free
but don't complain when people don't understand you or
"everything that has been said before is ignored or forgotten"

> None
> whatsoever. That fact is the *very reason* why we need logic and the
> scientific method.

There you go stealing the concept of "scientific method".

> It doesn't undercut our knowledge. It is the reason
> for the need of it.

I think you will find that most scientists agree with the
logic of falsification.

> It is not I who have trouble finding my car in a parking lot

Nor do we. Any more than you do except for the possiblity
that "new fact should emerge bearing" on the car should emerge.

> - or even of knowing who I am.

That falls under the cogito.
But Gordon has his own definition of knowledge just as you
have your own definition fo certain so there is no issue.

Tom