Moorad, let me intersperse some comments into your Email.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:57:59 -0400 Moorad Alexanian
<alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> Dear David,
>
> Your philosophical arguments, whether things or people outside of
> yourself
> exist, were once made by a philosophy professor in a classroom,
> however, the
> students observed that whenever the bell ending the class would ring
> the
> professor had no problem finding the door to exit the classroom.
You are perfectly demonstrating the naivete of the students. The
professor was not professing skepticism, he was trying to get some
self-confident youths to realize how much they depended on unprovable
assumptions. But they were so sure of their knowledge that they did not
get the point at all.
> The human
> "device" can experience hallucinations but such is not the case
> with
> mechanical, electrical, etc. devices. The latter constitute the
> data for
> science.
When did one of these devices, without human intervention at any point,
produce and analyze the measurements? The fact is that you cannot prove
that these devices exist. You are building on your unprovable assumptions
that your observations are veridical. I share those assumptions, but
recognize my finitude.
>Philosophers raise all sorts of interesting questions but
> they
> supply no answers.
Evidently you have not read much philosophy, or perhaps recognized it as
such. Philosophers provide many answers, many of them necessarily wrong
because they contradict each other. But, if you respect the ecumenical
creeds, all represent philosophical answers to problems with the
exception of the Apostles' Creed, which is a more simple statement.
>Birds know nothing of aerodynamics but still fly.
> We are
> the same. That is the mystery of life. You live without being able
> to prove
> that you are alive.
How do you mean this? Doesn't my awareness of the cogito give me proof
that I live?
<No matter how clever you think philosophers are
> there
> are all sorts of implicit assumptions they make in their musings
> without
> their knowledge.
I have often noted that one of the most difficult problems philosophers
have is of being aware of their presuppositions. Some do very poorly. I
had a Kantian professor once who stated that he had no presuppositions:
he was merely seeing things as they really were. But he was an exception.
Most recognize their basic commitments, which their colleagues are ready
to point out to them if they are not aware of them.
>In fact, David Hilbert, the father of axiomatics,
> showed
> that Euclidean geometry needed 21 axioms rather than the five that
> we
> normally teach in order to derive rigorously all the theorems of
> Euclidean
> geometry.
This reference to Hilbert and Euclid confuses me. Both are geometers and
Hilbert contributed to modern logic. But what does this have to do with
philosophy? What I recognize is that Euclid had 5 postulates and 5 common
notions, with only the latter axiomata. He recognized that the postulates
did not have to be true, something that had to be rediscovered near the
beginning of the 19th century. He did not recognize that the proofs
depended on information taken from the diagrams. Hilbert recognized this
and transformed geometry into an empirically empty system with undefined
primitives. Until it is interpreted, it's pretty much useless--except to
theoretical mathematicians.
>Therefore, I agree with you that we have to make
> assumptions
> otherwise we would get nowhere. Absolute knowledge is not attainable
> by man,
> but man can still understand and explain. Philosophers should not
> take
> themselves to seriously.
If they didn't, we'd be in a bind. Someone remarked that philosophy is
the common sense of the next century. It has been remarked that Newton's
Principia is an interpretation of the Cartesian philosophy. Einstein's
relativity exemplifies a Kantian base. I won't try to predict what may be
relevant a century from now, for there were more than Descartes and Kant
active during their lifetimes.
May I suggest that you not be so defensive. No philosopher is taking away
your ability to do science, your common sense assumptions (or whatever it
takes to deal with quanta and quarks). Most of us are realists, but we do
discourage naive realism. And we strongly favor awareness.
Best wishes,
Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 00:50:09 EDT