Indian Logic Forum

tantidharo

With respect to Khuram's Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind:, I thank the author for currently prompting my Sunday morning caffeinated intellectual habit.

I present what follows as a brand new topic for reasons that are hopefully implicit in the text.

Five notations

1. Are you not dressing knowledge in mythic terms?

2. Consider her as naked/dismantled/deconstructed for a spell.

3. I am actually taking impromptu interest in describing your approach as either blatantly assuming excessively much or else demuring all convention and sculpting the fray of proprietary minions in pseudo-scientific decorum and hardwood.

4. Thus in the spirit of affecting our forum with new and efficient vim and vigour, I suggest you return and try to reshape in a daringly curt and clear-cut manner exactly what you are trying to test.

5. You may then find out (this is only my hypotheses) that the problem rests not with the ineluctability of your unreachable conclusion, but in the simple unsoundness of your basic inquiry with plain implications for its methodological investiture, which I am finally tempted to describe as monastic, as opposed to scientific.

best regards,

tdharris

the sritantra project
bauddhamata
grafting plato's shadow play

___________________________________

An after quote:

<<It was Nietzsche, however, who provided the first detailed explanation of the cognitive operations that give rise to perspectival thought. In his essay "On Truth and Lying in an ExtraвЂ“Moral Sense" (1873), Nietzsche invokes Protagoras when he notes that in order to understand the world we "treat [people] as the measure of all things," but in doing so we must recognize that individuals do not have "things immediately before [them] as mere objects" (251вЂ“52). Human consciousness, claims Nietzsche, is not in contact with "the thing itself" because it registers images, not things (248). Moreover, these things represent themselves to us only as language, i.e., as a system of signs or metaphors that display not "the full and essential" nature of phenomena but only characteristic features of those phenomena that are prominent for the observer (Gilman xiii). Correspondingly, there is no "unrhetorical 'naturalness' of language" that simply mirrors rather than modifies experience, nor is there a single criterion available outside of language that can assess the "right perception" of any particular linguistic sign (Gilman xiii; Nietzsche 252, resp.). Instead, in every instance of thought or speech, we employ a network of tropes that are, by nature, partial, metamorphic, and partisan, a language, in other words, that will always reflect the perspective of the rhetor and beyond which there is no appeal to an absolute (cf. Gilman xiiiвЂ“xxi).>>

Ref. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:AQBWuBRt7o8J:www.public.iastate.edu/~mendy/publications/manysides/chapter1.html+nietzsche+%22full+text%22+%22on+truth+and+lying%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=sg

khuram

Thanks for sharing the quote. Nature of Knowledge is a subjective issue. Please see my thread on Nature of Subjectivity and Objectivity in the same section of forum also.

And I just believe in the slogan: "Let Philosophers think; and Scientists confirm and apply."

Thinkers should freely think and then they should present their ideas in best possible way. Then Scientists should choose the testable ideas and then they should perform experimental verifications. Hopefully, at least some new things shall be established in this way...!!!

Regards!

Mary

khuram

khuram · Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:25 am Post subject:

Just want to add a thing.

Einstien was a "Theoretical Scientist". He just had applied his mind and had proposed the theories. His General Theory of Relativity, for instance, published in 1916 whereas the "Practical Scientists" found experimental proof for this theory in 1919.

Obviously there are many other similar examples.

Regards!

khuram · Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

Please check my recent Hot debate on the issues of nature of scientific procedures on another South Asian Forum (having member base from all over south asia) on following link:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007609&channel=university%20ave&threshold=0&layout=1&order=1&start=30&end=39&page=1#38

I have shown some basic faults and conceptual errors in existing scientific procedures. I have shown that true nature of even existing science is "Rational" and NOT "Empirical". I also have shown that actually there is no clash between empirical knowledge and rational knowledge and that rational knowledge takes input only from empirical knowledge. Empirical Knowledge is the "raw material" and Rational Knowledge is actually the "Proper Organization" of raw empirical knowledge.

I also have pointed out some absurdities in the established science. My points are strong enough that some members are now seriously taking them. I am trying to show that still an important component behind the progess of science is LOGIC. But science is mistakenly and erroneously downgrading all forms of rational inquiry and even the theory of logic.

Regards!

Plamen · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject:

Probably because thinking logically would rarely bring us to new discoveries and revolutionary paradigm shifts. Smile

Mary · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:

Khuram,

Some of your passages seem to be more related to the rote methodological procedures of scientific research than to the 'logic'. There is more than one 'logic' to science, as I am sure you are aware if you are a student of the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy.

I think this interview by Pervez Hoodbhoy of Noam Chomsky is very indicative of Hoodbhoy's view of science. And his evaluations of the educational systems in Pakistan and India are very insightful.

Regards & Metta

khuram · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:

Plamen · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:35 am Post subject:

Dear Khuram,

Let us consider the logical status of the falsifiability criterion for scientific value. There is no Law of Exception in logic that would confirm a hypothesis, proposition or theory. So the requirement these latter to be falsifiable in order to be scientific is illogical, and here is where science and logic are in foundational conflict.

Or take the constant c of light speed. The principle of falsifiability requires that there be conditions under which the statement of C would not be true. But the only condition under which the statement of C can be falsified is to find an object that moves at the speed of light. And science prohibits the existence of such objects.

On the other hand, if we admit that one can mount a photon and travel at the speed of light then, following the Lorentz equations, the photon knight would cover different cosmic distances for one and the same (zero) time - which will disprove the constancy of light speed. Or, to put it otherwise, the speed of light is immanently variable, not a constant per se.

So there is little logic on a foundational level.