This is quite false: Kepler and Copernicus both had religious reasons for adopting their ideas as well as those based on neoplatonic and hermetic ideas, particularly from Philolaus. It was because of these that Copernicus insisted that orbits must be spherical and it took Kepler so long to...
You can tease all you like, but principled objection doesn't appear to be welcome here. Oh well.
*shrug* I don't take this stuff personally but I'm not interested in the behaviour I've had directed at me so far, in this thread.
Read on a little further. Quine remarks thus:
Of course...
I'll gladly answer you if you're able to cease mischaracterising me, offering non sequiturs and stop worrying about which box i'll fit into.
For my sins, i do indeed.
Sure, but this is yet another rampant non sequitur. If you intend to discuss these matters and use terms like truth and...
No. Are you intending to continue the non sequiturs?
That wins an irony award. You can communicate however you like, as i already said.
You miss the point again. Not everyone agrees about what truth means or refers to in the first place, so it's no use for you to talk about deciding...
That doesn't seem too satisfactory, especially when you use the term so often and make important points thereby.
Why do you require such a picture, along with an "ism" with which to categorise me? My objections apply whether I'm a solipsist or naive empiricist (like most here, apparently)...
It's not clear to me what "my view" is supposed to represent or why it's "wrong" because i allegedly haven't noted that empiricism came along and changed rationalism.
I'll look for a reference for you: chapter six of his paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism.
Alternatively, he could be pointing...
Thanks for your additional remarks.
Er... because i said so? I just guessed you might be interested in his many writings on the boundary between observer and observed being fluid at best and not as rigid as some suppose.
That doesn't really help much, though: what is it to know...
Out of interest, what's your objection(s)?
Likewise, which questions are they begging?
That's Bohm. I think you'd enjoy reading some more Bohr.
Are the two forms of knowledge, certain and scientific (to use the terms we've seen so far), variations on the same or a...
No. I'm baffled as to where you got that idea.
Most of it; Needham's work is an excellent resource.
Do you think that's a sensible approach to the history of science and this issue of progress?
Not to fret. I'm back with my library now, so i can say some more. The paper is called A Deeper Unity and here's a small quote:
The basic idea, of course, is that there is simply too much information taken into be able to make sense of it without filtering it through the equivalent of a...
Although we're still small, we discuss the history and philosophy of science often at my boards and have several experts there (along with me as light relief and for comic effect). You and anyone else would be most welcome.
The philosopher of science Larry Laudan wrote a famous paper on this...
Well, the point was that it isn't possible to have an experience other than within an interpretive framework (or rather, that was the suggestion).
*shrug* Fair enough, but that isn't much of an argument. The paper I'm thinking of is in my library, so i'll let you know later what it was...