Replies

So, to make a long story short, your conditions are acceptable. Play ball! :^)

To: general_re
your conditions are . . .
ah, those epic endeavors. "conditions for the possibility of" The architectural principle of the modern age might oblige to tip the hat to Aristotle. But to a Nietzsche or a Foucault grinning at us with sardonic smiles?
1256 posted on 03/03/2003 12:21 PM CST by cornelis

To: cornelis
Some say "is", some say "isn't". I say "let's find out". It is what it is, regardless of who likes it or dislikes it, who promotes it or dismisses it, or who takes comfort in it or is injured by it...
1257 posted on 03/03/2003 12:29 PM CST by general_re
To: general_re; Diamond
what it is
I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.
A certain presumption--perhaps still tame and legitimate in Aristotle but certainly not after Kant--imagined that particular conditions could be generalized beyond themselves and raised to a universal status.
Of course they is what they are. A unified field theory is likewise limited. One of the joys of the press was the political hay they made with Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps they did not "universalize" the theory, but they certainly took great pleasure in extending and generalizing it into fields from which it did not originate. Hayek called this the abuse of reason.
1258 posted on 03/03/2003 1:01 PM CST by cornelis
To: cornelis
I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.
If the design inference consistently passes or consistently fails such tests, we may then inductively reason our way to a conclusion about the worth of it. If we were so inclined, we could then take the next step into Humean skepticism and dismiss that conclusion for the simple reason that the inductive principle is unproven. But, since virtually everything we think we know is gained inductively, that does not strike me as a useful position to take.
1265 posted on 03/03/2003 2:36 PM CST by general_re

General_re, if the design inference consistently passes, you may be happy. But we may not, except by some other presumption, inductively reason whereby that particular consistency is turned into a universal. With or without Hume, consistency can only translate into universality on the basis of something else--in your case--the "useful position." The useful position has often enough devolved into historicism.

In short, your logical conclusion gives no right to make an existential conclusion extending beyond the particular inferences you begin with. Perhaps if the two mate well, the logical and existenial, you have a credible consistency, and perhaps widely applicable. However, you cannot end with universal conclusions without beginning with universal inferences.

Happy Trails.