XPost: alt.postmodern   
   From: Abx45Dfh@jjh76g7856gh.com   
      
   "Kevin Calder"  wrote in message   
   news:3yodhkBluENAFwW4@cableinet.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.   
   >   
   The distinction  is often blurred - especially by technologists. I guess   
   science is about a certain type of theory of the physical world - natural   
   philosophy. Technology is just making things, and the technologist may use   
   science - or may not. It was though however yourself who thought science   
   made things work?   
   >   
   > >> 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?   
   >   
   not necessarily - doesn't Buddhism follow such an idea about the   
   personality?   
      
   > zip,   
   > --   
   > Kevin Calder   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)