On Nov 19, 10:22*am, Daniel-San wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:58*am, Giles wrote:





On Nov 19, 9:27*am, Daniel-San wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:29*pm, Giles wrote:

oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"

Not always distinguishable.

Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
structuralists versus....

Mine head spinneth.

-Dan

Second versus, same as the firstus.

Enery

Epistemologies are fun. Until someone challenges yours. Then it gets
oddly personal. The question of what constitutes "truth" or fact to a
person seems to be among the more closely-held beliefs. Right up there
with religious preference (or lack thereof) and sexuality.

I think epistemology is always fun, regardless of challenges. It does
indeed get personal.....but then, it certainly SHOULD be.....otherwise
it's just another bit of rather pointless intellectual gymnastics, at
best. As to the matter of "truth" versus "fact," yet another fertile
field of inquiry, conjecture, theoretical speculation, semantics and
whatnot which, in the minds of most, appears to be nothing more than
yet another irresistible stimulous for ejecting yet another endless
stream of incoherent twaddle. At the end of the day, anyone who
boasts that he "distinguishes between truth and fact," can't be taken
seriously by anyone interested in anything more than cheap humor.

My copy of Blackwell's dictionary of modern social thought is a well-
worn tome. And I still don't understand ****. But it gives me lots of
stuff to think about when I run or fish.

I don't run (did for a while in the seventies.....until one day when I
looked back over my shoulder and discovered that no one was chasing
me.....so I stopped) and haven't fished much in the last couple of
years. Surprisingly, to some perhaps, this has left me with not less,
but MORE time to think. Hasn't made any difference, though.....or
none that I've noticed, anyway.

Meanwhile, I've never actually looked at Blackwell's (still, I think I
should get consolation points for having heard of it), but it seems to
me that in a group where social thought is entirely lacking in the
majority of the most vociferous, anything and everything therein is
moot.

And THAT, should anyone require it, is even more to think
about.

-Dan
(Mostly Deweyan pragmatist, with a pinch of post-modernist
inclusiveness. I think.)

I wouldn't know how to begin describing myself. Fortunately, there
are many others willing to take up the standard and do it for me.

giles