XPost: alt.postmodern
From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
In message , James Whitehead
writes
>
>"Kevin Calder" wrote in message
>news:M8dzyxA3AqMAFw44@cableinet.co.uk...
>> Regardless, would a, *ahem*, radical-relativist be willing to concede
>> that it is science and technology that "makes them work"? Possibly I
>> suppose. Though I doubt that the radical-sceptic would.
>[Enters telephone box - Takes off jacket and shirt to reveal tight fitting
>lurex jump suit and cape emblazoned with RR logo]
>- in deep patronising voice - NO! science does NOT make them work -
>science *used* to attempt to explain how they worked- and was characterised
>by completing theories which *claimed* to give a better explanation, and
>offered (implied) a promise that one day this process would arrive at THE
>ANSWER. We dont even have to open the quantum can of worms to see that
>science never proposed what your question does. As for technologists they
>notoriously pursue only pragmatic approaches to nature.
Cmon man, the radical sceptic is never going to buy any of that!
And it depends on on what you mean by "make work". If nature made boats
work then there wouldn't be anything for ship builders to do.
So what you are saying is that 'scientists' observe nature and theorise
about it, and then 'technologists' come along and make stuff work using
said theories? I just want to be clear about the distinction between
scientist and technologist.
>> Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
>[opening wide one eye] Weeeeeel - a truly radical relativism must surely
>critique the idea of the individual? - [smiling]
So, it goes beyond solipsism into nihilism then?
zip,
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
