On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:28 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> And of course such assertions boil down to:
> "it follows from my preferred AXIOMS that the
> world much match my beliefs about it".
>
> Again, this is just another way of immunizing
> against the empirical evidence.
>
> The term "obvious" is generally a pretty strong
> signal that thinking has stopped.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan Isaac

Considering the tone, it wouldn't surprise me if this debate will very soon corroborate Godwin's Law. I want no part of that, but I find the above a quite fantastic statement. I'd like to think that it was sloppily written, but as it stands the methodological implications are astounding. It seems to suggest that logic is irrelevant (and hence that axioms cannot be true or that it doesn't matter what is derived logically from a true statement) or, alternatively, that the fact that something is observed (empirically so, such as seen, heard, measured and whatnot) makes it as well as its use free from interpretation, subjectivity, or value assessments. 

I might point out that the "obviousness" that "the Sun circles the Earth" is in fact an empirical observation, though tainted by the observer's (false) assumption that the ground s/he stands on does not move.


Per Bylund

_____________________
Per L. Bylund, Ph.D.
Baylor University
 
[log in to unmask]
(573) 268-3235