[PatrickHenry]

I'm o.k. with theories - but before one starts embracing paradigms, he ought to first have a Cosmology in mind else the whole structure could crash and burn.

Vocabulary Time-Out!

A-Girl, before I get too lost, please let me know what you mean when you use the word "Cosmology" in this context, because I don't think you're talking about the Big Bang, etc. I'm well aware that in traditional philosophy, the term "metaphysics" means the nature of reality, and it's regarded as being prior to epistemology. And not too long ago you said, to much praise by me, that most of the arguments around here are actually about the nature of reality -- which I took to be a statement about the primary role of metaphysics. But now "Cosmology" is appearing in your posts, and I'm confused. (I'm often confused, but I'm getting used to it.) So help out an old freeper.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for your replies and for raising your objections to my putting so great an emphasis on Cosmology to understand our growing body of knowledge.

js1138: cosmology in the literal sense is at the wrong scale to affect the observable processes of variation and selection. It may come in handy if science develops fruitful hypotheses concerning abiogenesis.

To the contrary, Cosmology is the "study of the large-scale structure and history of the universe. In particular, it deals with subjects regarding its origin and evolution. It is studied by astronomy, philosophy, and theology."

Here we are back to the "edges" in our exchange of metaphors. I see no edges - no boundaries - no seams - to our seeking and thus would never paste "there be dragons" anywhere on the sphere to keep people from "going there".

The boundary-less structure is "all that there is" and thus Cosmology is the background sphere on which our body of knowledge should be drawn. The context is what gives the knowledge meaning.

Evidently, in your view the quest for knowledge is "tiled" into subject areas - so if one is investigating biological evolution, abiogenesis is over the edge, ditto for fields (physics) and so on. Cosmology would be another tile (or sheet of paper with its own edges) in your view. And on each edge, there would be the warning "there be dragons".

I believe the tiled concept (or compartmentalization) is a false image of both reality and knowledge and thus cannot help us to derive meaning from it.

PatrickHenry: A-Girl, before I get too lost, please let me know what you mean when you use the word "Cosmology" in this context, because I don't think you're talking about the Big Bang, etc. I'm well aware that in traditional philosophy, the term "metaphysics" means the nature of reality, and it's regarded as being prior to epistemology. And not too long ago you said, to much praise by me, that most of the arguments around here are actually about the nature of reality -- which I took to be a statement about the primary role of metaphysics. But now "Cosmology" is appearing in your posts, and I'm confused. (I'm often confused, but I'm getting used to it.) So help out an old freeper.

Indeed, I am not speaking only of the Big Bang or other alternate explanations for the history of the corporeal universe. I am extending it to the metaphysics wrt reality or "all that there is" - because this is the background or context for all that we currently know or might discover in the future.

Without that context, our body of knowledge lacks meaning.