Re: Empirical Beliefs & Hypothesis; Do they terminate in some beliefs that need no further justification, go on infinitely - on belief being justified by other that then need justification, or circle back upon itself in some way - constituting a sort o
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
Posted by stan on August 23, 2008, 12:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options Publius wrote: >
>>>What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
>>>perceiving light of that wavelength. >>
>> You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it? >
> We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained > why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because > those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in > behavior. Like cross-posting and trolling? I never thought of it like that. Maybe all newsreaders should avoid reddish fonts. | ||||
|
Posted by John Larkin on August 23, 2008, 1:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options >Publius wrote:
>>
>>>>What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when
>>>>perceiving light of that wavelength. >>> >>> You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it? >>
>> We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained >> why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because >> those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in >> behavior. >
>Like cross-posting and trolling? I never thought of it like that. Maybe >all newsreaders should avoid reddish fonts. Hey, it's fun to talk to philosophers and pizza delivery guys now and then. John | ||||
|
Posted by stan on August 24, 2008, 1:01 am
Please log in for more thread options
John Larkin wrote: >
>>Publius wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when >>>>>perceiving light of that wavelength. >>>> >>>> You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it? >>> >>> We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained >>> why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because >>> those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in >>> behavior. >>
>>Like cross-posting and trolling? I never thought of it like that. Maybe >>all newsreaders should avoid reddish fonts. >
> Hey, it's fun to talk to philosophers and pizza delivery guys now and > then. I know what you mean, I induldge myself every now and again. I am mildly surprised at the s/n. Maybe usenetII should consider some sort of spread spectrum technology. Every so often I start to think that society is really going backwards but then I have to remind myself we are definately producing much better and persistent idiots that at any point in history. It's probably a pendulum or a karma thing and were paying for the number and quality of the physics genius alive from the 20's till WWII. | ||||
|
Posted by John Larkin on August 24, 2008, 1:20 am
Please log in for more thread options
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>Publius wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>What is subjective is the impression experienced by the observer when >>>>>>perceiving light of that wavelength. >>>>> >>>>> You can't know that, and it can't be tested, so why worry about it? >>>> >>>> We can't know that it is subjective? Of course we can. You just explained >>>> why we can know that (it can't be tested). We should worry about it because >>>> those possible differences in perception may explain some differences in >>>> behavior. >>> >>>Like cross-posting and trolling? I never thought of it like that. Maybe >>>all newsreaders should avoid reddish fonts. >>
>> Hey, it's fun to talk to philosophers and pizza delivery guys now and >> then. >
>I know what you mean, I induldge myself every now and again. I am mildly >surprised at the s/n. Maybe usenetII should consider some sort of spread >spectrum technology. > >Every so often I start to think that society is really going backwards >but then I have to remind myself we are definately producing much better >and persistent idiots that at any point in history. It's probably a >pendulum or a karma thing and were paying for the number and quality of >the physics genius alive from the 20's till WWII. What's remarkable about the philosophers is how many words they expend on prodigiously dull and useless stuff, when so many interesting things are happening. John | ||||
