Subj: Evolution generalized, and two points about philosophy
CC: ccogan@sfo.com (Chris Cogan)
Hi Chris,
snip>
Bertvan
>> No one is going to "prove" any philosophy.
Chris
Again, the quotes make it seem that you do not mean proof in a literal
sense. But, I will assume, for the sake of this remark, that you DO mean it
literally. Since this is a philosophical claim, I'm wondering if you can
prove it. If you can, then you ARE proving (part of) a philosophy. If you
can't, then why should we take it seriously?
Obviously, not EVERYTHING in a philosophy can be proved, though this does
not mean that not everything can be VALIDATED.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris,
I'm wondering if you can prove THAT? (That some things in philosophy can be
VALIDATED)
It seems to me much of what we are all doing is quibbling over definitions,
claiming a philosophical position can't be proved but it can be VALIDATED.
Validated in whose eyes? In the eyes of whoever is advocating it, I imagine.
We can both think of beliefs so widely accepted, that it would be easy to
argue that they have been VALIDATED. Is that what you mean? Would you
consider a philosophical position VALIDATED when it is held by a numerical
majority? I say philosophical positions can not be proved, and I can't prove
that. I have no desire to try. It is merely my philosophical position.
Bertvan