According to Brent Meeker:
I don't think that's a good example of not considering the evidence.
Ignorance is a relative term - he didn't know a child was about to run out in
the street, but he (and most people) know there are children in residential
areas and that they may run out in the
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high
speed is more likely to kill someone as evidence? If the driver
honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual
disability, then he would have dimminished responsibility for the
Rich Winkel writes:
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high
speed is more likely to kill someone as evidence? If the driver
honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual
disability, then he would have diminished
Colin Hales wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are
NOT
what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia,
what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony
demands we assume 'something' and
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test
new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence,
including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be
included in any risk/benefit
According to Rich Winkel:
Medicine is not like astronomy.
In that ignorance can be toxic.
Rich
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Le 16-août-06, à 03:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
If we realise that things cannot be as they seem then this is new
evidence
and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not
intend
that things are as they seem be understood in a narrow sense, such as
what our
Rich Winkel wrote:
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test
new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence,
including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be
included in any
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you
do
either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science
just
creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most
likely
they
Rich Winkel writes:
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test
new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence,
including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be
included
Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit :
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light
of new
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote
: Re: Can we ever know truth?
(ref.:)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
(ref#2):
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know
, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
(ref.:)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
(ref#2):
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14
]
To: Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
(ref.:)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
(ref#2):
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit :
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John M writes:
When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing
physics are only provisionally accepted as 'real'?
(I just wanted to tease members of this list.
Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and
such thoughts are not unusual. We are
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John M writes:
When did you
The laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know
Norman Samish writes:
In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, If we are living in a
simulation. . .
To which John Mikes replied, I think this is the usual pretension. . . I
think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know.
Such 'simulation' -
Stathis,
thanks for a reply in reason - you said the million
dollar word. (I will come back to 'quote' it).
First:
As Norman, I, too, was a very smart kid (and am still
very modest - ha ha) and had ALL my experiences of a
5-year old at 5. Since then I collected 2-3 additional
'experienced'
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Norman Samish writes:
In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, If we are living
in a simulation. . . To which John Mikes replied, I think this is the
usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in'
according to the little we know.
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light
of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that
things
John M writes:
When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing
physics are only provisionally accepted as 'real'?
(I just wanted to tease members of this list.
Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and
such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.)
An example
criticise
him if he does.
Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:17:37 -0500
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science
Nick: the practical - philosopher.
I refer to my 'misunderstood' expression to Bruno:
NAME Calling
(which was a pun, meaning we call names and assign
meaning to it - in our OWN mindset, then fight for
THIS meaning against another person's meaning called
by the same NAME) - Bruno misunderstood
I think this is wrongheaded. You doubt that you really assume things are
how they appear to me - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and
electrons don't appear at all. What one does is build, or learn, a model
that fits the world and comports with how they appear. I see no reason
This is a form of solipsism - it is
difficult to attack it and defending it can be similarly time consuming. I
think we have to move on and believe there is a better approach if only to
get somewhere other than back to the beginning every time.
- Original Message
Nick Prince wrote:
This is a form of solipsism - it is difficult to attack it and
defending it can be similarly time consuming. I think we have to move
on and believe there is a better approach – if only to get somewhere
other than back to the beginning every time.
Hi Norman,
It has been said that dreams provide the royal (and oldest) path to metaphysics and doubt. What you are saying here is behind the key of the 6th steps of the UDA argument. Although nowadays video games + some amount of imagination can be a good substitute for dream.
Now I am not sure
Norman,
my response to the subject is: NO. I
learned a good _expression_ here (on this list) I think from Tom(?): "perception
of reality".
"I can onlyassume that reality ishow things appear to me
- and I might be wrong." (Wise way to save one's sanity.)
Upon (cultural?) historical
32 matches
Mail list logo
