humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> In article ,
> mark@myinboxisbroken.com says...
>
>>The evidence that cows can't jump over the moon does not consist of the
>>fact that no one has yet seen a cow jump over the moon.
>
> Why not? Indeed, why isn't all of human knowledge evidence that a cow
> cannot jump over the Moon? Why would you ignore background knowledge?

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "does not consist of." I
meant that the evidence is not *coextensive* with the lack of observed
instances of cows jumping over the moon.

>>It's not just that no exception has been observed so far. It's that we
>>have an understanding of *why* there never have been, and never will be,
>>any exceptions.
>
> These understandings are based upon theories, which of course have never
> been logically proven to be true.

I'm debating whether or not I should ask you what being "logically
proven to be true" means. I think I'll resist the urge! :-)

> As long as you realize these theories
> are conjectures, then you are in my camp, however solicitous of Fred's
> tender dignity you might choose to be here.

Well, I acknowledge that it's always possible (epistemological sense!)
that expectations that we form based on a well-supported theory will
turn out to be false. There may be some aspect of things that we don't
know about, that wasn't important in the earlier observations that
motivated, and supported, the theory. In that case, we'll be surprised,
and we'll learn something new. That's life!

In spite of this, I do think that some of our theories are so
well-supported, and so successful as explanations of our experience,
that it can sometimes be reasonable to adopt an attitude of certainty
about conclusions that follow from those theories. (Needless to say,
this would not be "the certainty that can't be wrong." There are no
magical "guarantees"!)

> And if you think you can
> prove there will never be exceptions, then I'm going to have to ask who
> you are and what you have you done with Mark N.? ;-)

I honestly can't imagine what "prov[ing] there will never be exceptions"
could even *mean*.

Mark