Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ending my discussion of IDM

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart46
    Chris, When I joined the Existlist group, I didn t imagine that I would be drawn into a prolonged discussion about the limits (or lack of limits) of scientific
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Chris,

      When I joined the Existlist group, I didn't imagine that I would be
      drawn into a prolonged discussion about the limits (or lack of
      limits) of scientific explanation and understanding.

      Further, I don't imagine that long-standing Existlist members would
      have expected, as little as a month ago, that the forum would be
      dominated by two newcomers, neither of whom fit the standard
      existentialist profile.

      I think long-standing members sometimes rather resent newcomers
      coming in and straightaway dominating the message board. I'm not
      sure if this is good attitude or not. (I see since I wrote this
      draft, two Existlist members have indicated a desire to move on.)

      But for this reason, amongst others, I'm going to opt out of our one-
      to-one discussion with this post.

      Another reason for opting out is that if we carry on I think there
      is a danger of us repeating ourselves. I feel that we have both put
      forward detailed arguments for our "life-views", and those members
      of the Existlist who are still reading this thread can make up their
      own minds where the truth lies.

      Anyway, a few brief points on your two most recent posts before I
      sign off.

      First, your post 41445 was commenting on what I wrote to Trinidad.
      As such, I am more interested in what Trinidad says, if anything, in
      response to my post, than what you write. However I will say that
      your two-sentence dismissal of possibly the greatest philosopher of
      the twentieth century, because he hadn't studied neuroscience, is
      breathtaking.

      Second, in your post 41446, I think your response to what I wrote
      about my favourite painting, is weak. Your claim seemed to be that
      anything which was "local, discrete, particular" was a case of
      subjective experience. I offered two counterexamples – the painting
      and the pebble; your response didn't seem to engage with my argument
      by counterexample. You weren't saying the painting itself had
      subjective experiences, were you?

      Third, your recent posts have made me think that Trinidad's
      criticism that your IDM theory is "pseudo-science" is correct. Do
      you recall that Karl Popper argued that Freud's theory of
      psychoanalysis was a case of pseudo-science because the theory made
      no falsifiable predictions and could in fact "explain" every patient
      response or symptom whatever it was.

      I think your theory is like this. Whatever anybody says or does,
      your theory can explain it!

      Hurray for your IDM theory! At last a thinker has come up with a
      theory, a "system", which can explain everything. Hegel would be
      proud of you!

      Jim
    • Chris Lofting
      ... ... ;-) You don t understand - the IDM work is not an ontology, it is epistemology setting down the ground for ontological focus - as such it
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf Of jimstuart46
        > Sent: Sunday, 3 June 2007 12:36 AM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Ending my discussion of IDM
        >
        <snip>

        >
        > Hurray for your IDM theory! At last a thinker has come up with a
        > theory, a "system", which can explain everything. Hegel would be
        > proud of you!
        >

        ;-) You don't understand - the IDM work is not an ontology, it is
        epistemology setting down the ground for ontological focus - as such it
        covers the general, the 'language of the vague' that you immediately try to
        make crisp! - it seeds, guides, from unconscious levels what comes out of
        your mouth - in your case an extreme position of the singular and so focused
        on the point and so missing the field. But that's ok, that is your
        limitation that you will have to deal with.

        Chris.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.