"David G. McDivitt" wrote:
>
> A logic-based model works differently from a reality-based essentialism
> model. Each is simply a model with advantages and disadvantages. When I
> go to work it would be somewhat silly to ask, "Hey buddy, did it rain in
> your world this morning? It did in mine."
Perhaps where you are it either rains everywhere or doesn't, but in the
rest of the world, it only rains in specific locations at specific
times. Several times I've been on one side of the street in the sun
while those on the other side of the street were being rained on.... so,
the fact is, you are, essentially, wrong.
>
> Realists don't worry about conflict resolution very much. Right is right
> is right, right? So if a person has a problem it's a problem with what's
> right, right? The point is debate, dialectic, and conflict are essential
> for the emergence of truth. Realism gums up the works.
Especially when realism dictates that water never flows uphill on its
own, and you insist on living on top of a mountain. Subjectivists always
think that the universe should conform itself for their own comfort.
>
> The scientific community has a lot of conflict resolution. There are
> many, many challenges to theories, ideas, and experiments. They are
> handled through protocol, however. A person cannot just up and say
> whatever he wants. But what if a person did have a marvelous new idea
> and was unable to express it properly, or overcome political pressure?
> Where is the truth then?
Then it's not truth, is it?
>
> Your failure to acknowledge the role authority plays in knowledge is
> very short sighted in my opinion.
And your failure to acknowledge the role that the actual universe plays
in determining reality is very small minded in my opinion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT