You gravitated toward a void of empirical validation. You are attracted to voids of empirical validation. / a.
You don't "know" whereof you speak... A. As I have stated before, on this messaghe board and elsewhere.... there are basically four overall "epistemological" stances or approaches..... all with different variations or modifications that sort of evolve continually to account for whatever it is that has been since "figured out".... Broadly, they are Idealism, Realism, Phenomenology, and Nominalism......take your pick, A. ... or cite your "epistemological mentor".... if you have one..... Nominalism happens to be very staunchly in support of "empirical validation".....my favorite nominalist, "William of Ockham, made the (IMO) fundamental"Pyramid" distinction between a "VOX" being the constant "SIgn (or Word) " indicator of the interplay of a Subjective Concept (or "idea") CONCEPTUS having to come to grips (through empirical experience) with an Objective Reference (or "thing") RES... Notice the "words" Objective and Subjective..... Now, very generally.... on another hand.... for an Idealist... it's all Subjective.... both concepts and references..... whereas, an still another hand... for a Realist... it's all Objective... both concepts and references.... While on the fourth hand (HAR)... for a Phenomenologist ... the concepts are Objective and the References are Subjective..... BTW , Ockham made a distinction between, what he calls, "First Intention", noted above, where the "thinking mind person" tries to figure out what some "thing" is through direct "empirical experience" (or experiment) and another stage whiche Ockham calls "Second Intention" where the "thinking mind person" tries to figuer out what what a whole bunch of similar things are "abstractly" by mulling the things over in the person's mind..... Bare Plurals.... to a "Nominalist".... are "words".... that just get in the way of actually understanding.... "things"... be it empirically or more .... generally... as abstracted "Physical laws".... and such... that is, where the Physical Laws apply.... Ssome places... such "science Stuff".... is worthless in understanding "things".... like emotions, for example..... On Dec 6, 11:35 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > On Dec 4, 1:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > But, not always. For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive > > isotope is treated as probabilistic/ a. > > Somewhere above. I did say barring the limitations of current > > eperimental (mearuring) instruments or methodological or scientiffic > > "theory" shortfallls.> I mean, > > > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > > > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > > > "theoretical method".... > > > Oh yeah.... there it is... > > Exactly which of those "or"ed nouns applied to radioactive atoms? > Amazingly, you didn't narrow it down the second time. > > > ...his education is irrelevant. /a. > > > As for Mr. Einseele... I never asked his IQ... but I would assume that > > it is probably equal, maybe even higher than my own, maybe even higher > > than yours.... I don't know if IQ is always all that pertinent... > > education can't hurt... > > Wrong. Eduction can hurt when the subject is dogmatic as it often is > when there is little empirical validation. > > > I think it would prove to be a "bitch" for even > > a genius to figure out brain surgery or rocket science all on his/her > > own... from scratch..... > > > Einseele has read De Saussure, I believe, on linguistics and probably > > others.... I gave DeS... and some otheers a try, but I was more of a > > And, amazingly, you preferred not to comment on the deterministic > treatment of bare plurals in those papers, so much as comment on > Einseele's IQ. > > > curious sort, I soon gravitated to other, more "philosophical " or > > epistemological language concerns.... I gravitated toward came to > > favor nominalism, myself. > > You gravitated toward a void of empirical validation. You are > attracted to voids of empirical validation. > > > > > On Dec 1, 1:34 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 30, 2:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > aruzinsky.... > > > > FYI , Einseele is fairly well educated when it comes to > > > > linguistics..... you, on the other hand, do not appear to be all that > > > > knowledgeble of linguistics , at all..... a little courtesy on your > > > > part might be in order.... > > > > A. Einseele has repeatedly demonstrated a low IQ therefore his > > > education is irrelevant. > > > > B. If I were very knowledgeable about linguistics, I wouldn't have > > > posed the subject as a question. > > > > C. I referred to specific papers that I do not regard as science, or, > > > at least not good science. > > > > > On another front... statistics is usually a certain sign or indicatior > > > > of a "Soft Science".... Most "hard empirical Sciences" strive to > > > > obtain a single fixed result for any given experiment... > > > > In the aforementioned papers, seems to me that probabilistic phenomena > > > were treated as deterministic. Bad science or not science, you sort > > > it out. > > > > > I mean, > > > > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > > > > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > > > > "theoretical method".... > > > > But, soft sciences depend on statistical ranges..... e.g. 25% of > > > > respondents sustain this view....etc.... > > > > But, not always. For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive > > > isotope is treated as probabilistic.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
