This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

K-Gun

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About K-Gun

  • Rank
    Neophyte
  • Birthday 11/30/1976

K-Gun's Activity

  1. K-Gun added a post in a topic Joeseph Margolis- "The Flux of History and the Flux of Science"   


    See the Enlightenment.

    Anyways, machines undoubtedly help us measure natural phenomenon in ways that the human mind alone could not, but you seem to have missed the point.

    If our ontology starts from flux, then it follows that "knowledge" must be viewed as always lagging the ontic, always contingent upon the ontic, and certainly never complete because the only universal principle that unites 'being' is change.

    What is at stake is the recognition that the very "laws" that we seek to unify are in fact not laws (in the sense that they could always change) and the same holds for the "laws" of logic, mathematics, reference and predication.
    • 0
  2. K-Gun added a post in a topic Joeseph Margolis- "The Flux of History and the Flux of Science"   


    Well yes, that is a basic assumption that Margolis makes. He is a realist in the sense of the mind independence of the ontic.

    His argument is, if the ontic is in flux then knowledge can never be complete. What he is criticizing is the "progress" view of science which holds that one day we will know all things about all things. He points out, rightly imo, that for this to be possible, then "invariant objects of knowledge" must exist in the world. But for invariant objects of knowledge to exist then the ontic must not be in flux.
    • 0
  3. K-Gun added a post in a topic "Money is debt"   


    Thank you for breaking that down. This seems like it should be common sense. Unfortunately, common sense often loses out to conventional wisdom.
    • 0
  4. K-Gun added a post in a topic Joeseph Margolis- "The Flux of History and the Flux of Science"   


    Sorry about that, I thought I could squeeze a prologue in under fair use.

    I think the argument presented by Margolis is excellent.

    He is saying that you cannot separate ontology from epistemology in that the answer to the question "what exists?" is intrinsically tied to the answer to the question "what can we know?"

    As such, the basic argument is that if flux is the ontological state of the universe, then it is impossible for certain "queer" metaphysical objects of knowledge to exist that are invariant (yes, I am intentionally conflating Margolis' argument with Mackie's simply for explanatory purposes.) . These objects of knowledge are typically thought of as the laws of logic and the laws of science. Following from the inability to separate ontology from epistemology, if the brute facts of nature are in constant flux then so to are any abstract descriptions a knower can formulate to quantify those brute facts.

    Margolis is not saying that knowledge is impossible, he is saying that knowledge is not eternal and unchanging. He posits "stable patters of change" through the flux, which is what allows us to quantify and describe nature. He is not arguing relativism from epistemological perspectivism i.e. cultural relativism, but rather is arguing that stable coherent knowledge of the world follows from observation of the brute facts and that if the brute facts are subject to constant change then our knowledge is too.
    • 0
  5. K-Gun added a post in a topic "Money is debt"   

  6. K-Gun added a topic in History and Philosophy of Science   

    Joeseph Margolis- "The Flux of History and the Flux of Science"
    Please enjoy, you can find the entire book online here:

    http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft6t1nb4gf&chunk.id=d0e41&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e41&brand=ucpress
    • 10 replies
    • 2,819 views
  7. K-Gun added a post in a topic "Money is debt"   


    I think dismissing this problem for fear of
    • 0