Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
Nathaniel Hall (natehall@lgcy.com)
Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:31:17 -0600
>
> The senses can get used in 2 different thought processes.
> In Objectivism,you use what you've already seen to come to a theory. In the
> scientific method, which the experiment you described was based on, you
> first state a theory and then use the senses in the process of testing the
> theory. Here's an example of the 2 thought processes. An Objectivist like
> Nate might see my posts and come to a conclusion that I've never been an
> avid objectivist. A scientific way of looking at the issue, would be,
> forming a theory that I've never been an avid Objectivist and then checking
> to see if that's the case, by asking me, looking at the archives from
> earlier this year, among othe tests. I have found that the Objectivist
> method, in which you first see things and then draw conclusions, leads to
> many assumptions that can get falsified by checking. Nate--you even
> admitted that you saw the way Objectivists jump to conclusions, as if they
> think they know more than they do. Have you ever considered there might be
> a problem with the inductive method and the notion of "contextual
> certainty"? --David R.
Nate the objectivist has recieved other posts letting me know of what
you once were. This explains why our views are as close as they are.
However I still maintain that the objectivist method and the scientific
method are one and the same. That was what attracted it to me to
objectivism in the first place. (I've considered myself a scientist
almost from day one). I think the distinction your making here is an
artificial one. As long as you get a conclusion based on logic and the
senses does it matter which way you get there? But before you make that
journey you must believe the following:
1)Contradictions cannot exist.
2)Seeing is believing.
(I use this to mean whatever of the senses one has, no insult to blind
people intended here)
I know some folks out there don't like this take it or leave it
proposition but the unviverse dosn't care what they think. It goes on in
spite of anything they choose to believe. If we can't agree on the even
something as basic as those two axioms then what is the point of further
conversation?