3 ms·
> The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use
by mannykannot 4y ago
> The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use about it.
This is something where I agree with you. Interestingly, non-naturalistic analytical metaphysics supposes it can do just that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233114810_What_is_Analytic_Metaphysics_For https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233114810_What_is_A...
- mjburgess 4y agoPhilosophy is continuous with science in my view and hence in what words express That is, in the use of words. Not in words as objects nor words as mirrors --/ this is the road to non-realist spiritualism I don't have a problem with a person who maintains a non-scientific world view and with electrical AGI mumbojbo But of course, few do. They think that they're empiricists, scientists and in the side of some austere hard look at human beings This is just anti-human spiritualism , it isn't science what makes me vicious on this point is the sense of injury in what these ideas should be about. in my own mildly aristotleian materialist religion How awful to overcome one long veil of tears, only to drape another one on -- these people are capable of seeing past human folly, but fall right into another kind it's disappointing--- we're animals which are both far much more than electric switches and far less this new electic digital spiritualism is a PR grift which i'd prefer dead
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 4y agoOn the one hand, you express strong support for empiricism and the scientific method, but on the other, you express strong beliefs on how things must be without offering any empirical justification for them.