Re: [epistemology] Meaningless circularities (Georges)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 14:16 +0100 22-11-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:

>

> WE LIVE CURRENTLY AMID THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL

> REVOLUTION.

(...)

> That's what Einstein meant saying:
>
> A NEW MANNER OF THINKING IS ESSENTIAL
> IF HUMANKIND IS TO SURVIVE
>
> Relativistic Dialectic (RD) presented in this study endeavors to
> explicate Einstein's NMT as the emancipated Applied Epistemology,
> as an autonomous Inferencing System extended over the whole
> human Universe of Discourse and applicable for formulating and
> processing of critical human and social issues.
>
> It's "Relativistic", because the NMT postulates relativity of
> human knowledge.
>
> It's "Dialectic" because Relativity implies necessarily a basic
> dialectic or polar structure of apparently opposed, but in fact

> complementary terms or poles.

>

> ========================================================
> Antonio:
> It remains to be explained whether G.'s RD is meant to be
>
> 1. the whole (NMT) *To-Be-Applied-Epistemology*, or
> 2. a pole of a dialectic NMT polar structure encompassing RD.
>
> With the 1. option, the term "Dialectic" sounds a bit
> ambiguous,
> maybe abusive -- besides further absolute hegemony troubles.
> ========================================================
> G:
> A scientific, thus axiomatic theory provides foundations
> of such "sub_theories" as it may found. It cannot
> provide
> its own foundations without getting circular, i.e.
> meaningless. It's own foundations are its axioms which
> it accepts as granted. They are founded in turn in some
> founding "super-theory".
>
> Thus, RD in its role of Applied Epistemology provides
> foundations of its "sub-theory", the "Inferencing
> System",
> the "Phenomenalistic Logic of RD" or the "Cognitive
> Network".
>
> Its own foundations sees RD in its Axioms which can be
> founded in turn only in the external "super-theory",
> namely Ontology ("Foundations in Ontology").
>
> Thus, Antonio's question cannot be answered internally
> within RD without turning in idle, meaningless circularity.
> It may be discussed only within its founding
> Ontology
> ("Foundations in
> Ontology").
>
>
>
>
> Georges.
> ========================================================

Georges, I supposed it could be answered internally to this

discussion list into plain language without making recourse

to any meaningless circularity or self-referential tautology.

Anyway, please answer it out from where you like it better.

Regards,

antonio

P.S.

A further question.

I wonder why you equal the terms "scientific" and "axiomatic".

So late, I had been told that:

- "scientific" means "repeatable within practice", whilst

- "axiomatic" means "formulated into exclusively abstract

or formal only principles that don't require demonstration":

thus a matter of religious-like faith, rather than everyone's

"scientific" (i.e., *repeatable*) practical experiencing.

Maybe, your wanted EPISTEMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

could begin here...