----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > if so, is > > that form of truth meaningful in a general context? > > What does that mean? There is one one form of truth, which is, as Aristotle > said long ago, to say of that which is, that it is,a nd that which is not, > that it is not.
====================== Oh please............................ > Much expertise is knowledge how not knowledge that. Legal truth, for > example, is not really very interesting. It can be important to know what > the law says, but what most people want from the law is solutions to > problems, like with medicine and carpebtry. ================= What many more want is an admission falliblism by lawyers and legislators *as a class* so as to circumscribe the cultural domains into which the law intrudes, disguising the interests of a certain class as manifestations of platonic truth. > > is there > > an act of interpreting the technical truth? who best carries > > out that activity? > > Experts/ ================= Ah the interpretive regress.............Where's my Dilthey? > > >is the expert like a computer? unknowing > > of semantics but quick and effective at syntactic > > manipulation of symbols? > > No. ============= What is the expert *like*? A god perhaps? > > > > >c) could we trust the expert at least at his symbol manipulation > > and the trivial decisions involved within? how about those > > non-computational steps that penrose would have us believe > > are involved in thought? > > Do you really want to start on philosophy of mind here? Experts aren't > Vulcans or mentats. They're just pople with specialized skill and knowledge. > It's nothing wierd or mystical. They just studied hard and learned to do > things most people haven't. ================ And too many of them become authoritarian in the process.............. > > > >(i am trying to evade the questions that follow regarding > >reductionism and the use of a well-defined language such as math > >for proofs which can then be reviewed say by peers). > > > > Well, peer review is the norm eveb when proofs are impossible. > > jks > ================== And when peer review breaks down? Ian
