-----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............