: [snip]: Right, but you feel these are persuasive mainly because you are an advocate of one side in the debate. Advocates of the other side would argue that (1)you're misinterpreting the bible, (2) "god" is not explainable by logic, and can defy our attempts to understand him, (3)some appocryphal texts may contradict the cannonical texts, but these are not the "true word," and so forth. This is what I meant by an "advocacy argument," each side can propose reasons why they won't accept the other, but in the absence of some testable criteria, there is no way of resolving the issue other than persistence or volume (who tires of it first, or who shouts the loudest) and the debate is just so much wind in dry grass. However, I admit that it's only a matter of my personal taste that I usually avoid such arguments, as they don't seem to accomplish anything beyond making proponents feel smug about having the one true insight. ;-)
Well, you see, i would not say that i consider them persuasive just because i am an advocate of one side. I do not consider myself a partisan and am quite willing to be convinced of god's existence it is just that no christian (nor the good lord for that matter) has been able to undercut my arguments in such a way as to show that i am wrong.
I believe that it is possible to come to a reasoned conclusion on these matters.
In fact this brings me to another question. If as you contend we cannot show either side to be true and we are just 'advocates' then what sort of knowledge can we have of these matters? One side will be just as correct as the other. It will just be a matter of who asserts loudest and best (ie one foot on the slippery slope to relativism).
Then again if you are correct are we now not just advocating different positions? You cannot prove yourself that science is the only way to prove something as the proof you are attempting is not in fact science.
[snip]
: :(Indeed i wonder if revelation could really be considered as knowledge at all.)
: I suppose it could be considered a form of knowledge, in the same way that a dream about a unicorn is really a dream, or a low opinion of Beethoven's 9th is really an opinion, regardless of the unreality of unicorns or the undisputed scientific fact that the 9th is the single greatest piece of music ever. ;-) (now you simply have to realise I'm being facetious here. There is no such thing as a fact of aesthetics; I'm using this to clarify my point about advocacy. How could I ever convince a partisan that the 9th was a better piece of music than the Pogues' If I should Fall From Grace with God? Again, check out Korzybski, I bet you'd like him.)
I'll have to think about that...
: OK, fair enough. What Kuhn was actually talking about in SofSR's was that scientists are influenced by their cultural surroundings. Granted. No scientist denies this at all. For example, I find evolutionary theory compelling, in part because I live in the late 20th (and hopefully will also live in the early 21st!) century. Had I lived in the 12th century, I would have considered most of Darwin's work heretical, or at least crazy. After all, species appear to be fixed, at least over the course of a human lifetime (remember, no microscopes in the 12th century, so the rapid evolution of micro-organisms was unknown) and the bible, which I would have had to rely on, can be interpreted as suggesting that species are fixed and unchanging (it doesn't actually say this at all, of course, it simply says that species were created, it says nothing about what happened afterwards. The anti-evolution interpretation is therefore not biblically warranted in the first place, IMHO).
: What Kuhn was describing was his recognition that the kinds of questions scientists find interesting, and the kinds of answers they are prepared to accept as valid are, in part, dependent on cultural context. No scientist today is likely to spend much effort researching how to make horse-drawn chariots more efficient, for example, because our culture doesn't use these vehicles. No scientist today is likely to be convinced by any hypothesis involving phlogiston or the all-pervading aether, or attempts to square the circle, although at one time, all of these were considered valuable scientific persuits. This doesn't demonstrate that the scientific method is inherently subjective, simply that scientists who employ it operate within a cultural context, and the subjects to which it is applied are likely to vary as that culture evolves.
Wasn't one of kuhn's theses that all knowledge was theory dependent and as such the theory in effect presupposed the observation. So 'pure' observation was impossible and (i think) scientific theories were in effect circular (or self-fulfiling).
: As for "post-modernism," I have about as much use for that psuedo-intellectual twaddle as a fish has for a bicycle.
[Well i am glad to hear that. It's been all the rage in the universities. Bloody French philosophers!].
: So, in answer to your query, "Is there any truth at all?" (as an archaeologist, I simply MUST quote Indiana Jones, sorry.) "Archaeology is about _FACTS_. If you're looking for truth, go down the hall to the philosophy department." :-)
So if you find a vase in an ancient chinese burial ground and someone says 'hey that's a ming vase' all that matters is the fact that you found it? Isn't the statement 'that's a Ming Vase' true or false as against the world? And doesn't it's truth or falsity mean something?
: Thanks for responding, I'm really loving this!
No, thank-you (and goodnight)
: -Floyd
