Re: [epistemology] Science and masturbation

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

At 17:50 +0100 22-11-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
>Antonio:
>I had been told that:
>
>[A]- "scientific" means "repeatable within practice", whilst
>
>[B]- "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.
>========================================================
>Well, you may tell the guy who told you that, that he is
>a silly ass.
>
>In [A] he confuses Science with masturbation which indeed
>is "repeatable within practice".
>
>In [B] he confuses Axiom with Dogma, at least as far as
>one may get from his astounding style: normal people
>may "piss into", but they do not "formulate into",
>and "into principles" less than anywhere else.
>
>You could tell him to read "Dogma and Axiom" in

><http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm>

>but he does not seem to know how to read.
>
>It so happens that all, without exception, scientific theories
>are axiomatic, so that "axiomatic" is a necessary, although not
>sufficient condition for being "a scientific theory".
>
>You could ask him to show one scientific theory
>that is not axiomatic, but he will doubtless
>just start to masturbate.
>

>Georges
>

Georges,

I agree, that any theory is axiomatic at start.But it becomes

scientific as soon as it can be demonstrated, i.e., repeated

into practice. Otherwise it remains dogmatic nonsense even

if it had been uttered into formal only scientific language.

I remark, you didn't answer still to my initial questions, below,

which you requested earnestly, but you keep on repeating

self-referencing tautologies only. That is, wanting to affirm

the practical usefulness -- towards a NMT, maybe more

democratic, practice -- of whatyou theorizes, you want your

public to accept as "truth" all of what you states somewhere

else.  Which looks pretty conjuring trick.

For your convenience, I re-quote the original msg below.

Do not duck once again, please, if  you really wanted to

avoid useless repetitions.

Regards,  antonio

------------------- quoted original msg. ------------------------------

>

> 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...

------------------------

endquote