[lbo-talk] Epistemic matters relating to science and chairs

Eubulides paraconsistent at comcast.net
Sun Jan 9 07:32:49 PST 2005


-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Luke Weiger

Miles wrote:

"Again, makes no sense to me. Scientists make predictions to test their models. Are these models consistent with data? --A meaningful question. Do these models work? --A meaningful question. Do these models accurately represent reality? --Silly metaphysics."

I don't know what makes it silly--the purportedly representational character of belief dominates common-sense _and_ also (I think) philosophical thought. Does it have problems? Sure. If they're insurmountable, I'm pretty sure we're left with skepticism and not the crude pragmatism you advocate:

-----------------------------

Were you a representationalist when you were 10, or 15? The idea of representation[s] and representationalism [as epistemology and philo. of science] is a deeply historical phenomenon. It most definitely is not common sense. And what's so great about common sense anyway? Seems to me 'it' causes lots of problems; the point of science and philosophy and art etc. is to undo common sense, which is nothing but historical, sedimented, epistemic prejudices towards various social and physical phenomena............



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list