<div>Ravi said:</div> <div> </div> <div>Now my question(s):<BR><BR>Can you or someone:<BR><BR>a) Define "truth"? In such a way that it can be used in common<BR> reasoning? (this rules out, I think, such things as the deflationary<BR> theory, while leaving intact correspondence theories... you may<BR> consider this arguable, and I am willing to pursue that debate if<BR> necessary -- in fact it seems to me scientism requires a sort of<BR> deflationary approach/faith in science).</div> <div> </div> <div>******************</div> <div>For me, truth is related to the dynamic between freedom and necessity within history. What is true is what gives humankind the ability to become freer or to become aware of what might lead me backwards, towards less freedom, thus wary.</div> <div> </div> <div>***************************<BR><BR>b) Can you then show me that this truth is not relative but
objective <BR>or at least universal? Not in terms of particulars but in universal<BR>scope?</div> <div>**********************************</div> <div>Probably can't convince you of what I conceive as a general impulse (an instinct) in humanity to become freer and how they use their minds to accomplish same. Lots of books have been written concerning this impulse. Fromm's ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM does it well, IMO. At the moment, I'm reading John Bellamy Foster's MARX'S ECOLOGY which contains very useful arguments concerning this view of what progress (towards more freedom) means and its relation to idealism and materialism. Usually, people identifying themselves as socialists would point to the theory of historical materialism as an indication of how truth, especially empirical truth, works in relation to concepts devoid of same.</div> <div> </div> <div>*****************<BR><BR>c) How do you define "superior"? Do you
really think that astronomy is<BR> superior to astrology (for explaining the nature of the universe) in<BR> every sense? How do you expect to demonstrate that conclusively?</div> <div>**************************************</div> <div>I confess to thinking that belief in the efficacy of astrology over astrology is something which leads in the direction of unfreedom. I think human history has demonstrated that facet of the debate at least since the 16 Century. <BR>******************************************************<BR>d) What does superiority have to do with truth? </div> <div>*********************************************************</div> <div>The superiority of say, knowing how to reduce the labour time necessary to produce food, thus allowing for more free-time and less anxiety about hunger is a truth worth knowing and remembering. It is superior.</div> <div> </div> <div>***********************************</div>
<div> </div> <div>Ptolemaic system of planetary motion were probably superior to whatever it replaced. <BR>Does that make it "true"? Is Reimann geometry true?</div> <div>***********************</div> <div>Truth is relative to historical circumstance and what knowledge has been accumulated by humankind.</div> <div> </div> <div>***********************************************<BR><BR>e) What is meant by "validity" (of science)? Valid in what sense? In<BR> representing "truth"? In being "superior"? Or just in the mundane<BR> sense of being more reliable than a few other systems?<BR>**************************</div> <div>See above...</div> <div> </div> <div>********************<BR>f) Can you define "science"?<BR>**********************************</div> <div> </div> <div>The opposite of pseudo-science. The opposite of faith. The opposite of mythology.</div> <div> </div> <div>*************<BR>g)
When we abandon one system of explanation for another because the<BR> latter is more parsimonious or more elegant (easier to work with,<BR> etc), is this because the latter is more "true"? Or is it just a<BR> matter of "taste? (a preference for parsimony, elegance, etc).</div> <div>************************</div> <div>If the more complex explanation leads to greater freedom, it is, in that moment, truer.</div> <div> </div> <div>************************************<BR><BR>Thank you for any light you can throw on this. My tone is not intended<BR>to be combative but at worst defensive (since I do believe that the<BR>tolerance that defines a [true] progressive is a good thing; and does<BR>not *necessarily* lead to the gas chambers as bogeyman arguments <BR>attempt to show).</div> <div> </div> <div>****************</div> <div>Thanks Ravi. That's why I decided to post my views, however inadequate.</div> <div> </div>
<div>For forebearance,</div> <div>Mike B)<BR><BR></div><BR><BR>Read "Penguins in Bondage":<br>http://happystiletto.blogspot.com/<p> 
<hr size=1>Get your own <a href=" http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43290/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains"
>web address for just $1.99/1st yr</a>. We'll help. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/"
>Yahoo! Small Business</a>.