So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if the observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The appearance of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the observation, creating the appearance of identical results.
Nominalism is a bit "shy" about granting any actual standing to "universals".... beginning Scholasticism dealt in "universals"... then came along William of Ockham... the "first" nominalist....(more or less... mostly more).... Anyway, Ockham says tht Universals do not actually "exist" in reality... but that they are, at best, "abstracted thoughts" regarding very similar (in many Physical senses "clone" identical) particular things..... Ockhams' greatest contribution to Nominalism (to my thinking) was distinguishing between levels of "Intention"... First and Second.... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention First intention (Logic) a conception of a thing formed by the first or direct application of the mind to the individual object; an idea or image; as, man, stone. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Second+intention Second Intention (Logic) a conception generalized from first intuition or apprehension already formed by the mind; an abstract notion; especially, a classified notion, as species, genus, whiteness. Universals are... second intentions.... As to your observations about "appearance"... that smacks of what I used to hear was called the "fallibilist" argument... which pretty much amounts to the assertion that "one" can't trust one's own senses.... http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fallibilist Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on foundationalism. However, it is already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato. In fact, it had a such a direct philosphical relationship with Pyrrhonistic Skepticism, that Pyrrhonists of history are sometimes referred to as fallibilists, and modern fallibilists as Pyrrhonists.[1] [2] Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack, among other things, the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen Trilemma. Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based arguments. My quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual "knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant).... make a big to-do about it..... On Jun 8, 12:53 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism > > Hmm. I'm glad that we can agree to refrain from combat. Verbal jousting > becomes tedious after repetition. > > So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of > Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing > specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every > observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the > observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a > diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if the > observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The appearance > of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the > observation, creating the appearance of identical results. However, the need > to go about one's business makes this irrelevant and a satisfactory > performance of one's tasks can be attained by merely a casual glance at most > observables, with the observation filed away along with similar inaccurate > observations in one's memory. If some problem results due to that casual > approach to life, then and only then do *I* take a closer look to see what > went awry... > > I guess that you could say that I am superciliously superficial, shallow > even... > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:23:25 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I > > prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or > > points of argument... > > No need to get personal with me... unless you want to..... > > I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians > > are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians > > like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true > > Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer > > individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment > > on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously.... > > Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism... > > Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on > > epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take > > variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I > > think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I > > dislike about them.... > > Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting > > "personal".... > > > On Jun 8, 11:23 am, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/sYe16Qq5iTA > > > > Perhaps you should read at the link above. I despise authoritarianism. My > > > > desires for government power border upon anarchy. I have been on the > > > internet since 1997, active in 2001, 2007, 2010 until now. I dropped in > > on > > > epistemology early this year, where I have contributed my bombast from > > time > > > to time. If we are to engage in a flame war, then let's confine it to > > this > > > thread, since the pathetic sight of otherwise reasonable persons slinging > > > > mud and feces will be in context... > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:56:37 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly > > > > politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in a > > > > gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior and > > > > refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque.... > > > > > PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the > > > > locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of taking a > > > > hike.... > > > > > On Jun 7, 10:14 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Yep, she is a Titan, though definitely not of intellect. You on the > > other > > > > > > hand appear to be a mite, exerting all of your might (utterly > > negligible) > > > > in > > > > > an attempt to derail clean (more or less) humor onto the tracks of > > > > political > > > > > dissent. That won't work (because I consider politics beneath notice) > > due > > > > to > > > > > the entire topic being suffused with emotions which positively ooze > > > > > testosterone, with very little concealing perfume or deodorant. Take > > a > > > > hike, > > > > > or joust here, as you please. > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:28:51 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks > > > > > > Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt Crack.... > > > > > > > On May 28, 12:54 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/ckETvke2mOE > > > > > > > > Has some of my original jokes. Want more? > > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@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.
