[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Hirschfeld implications
It is important to recognize what *we* do not know.
> On 25-FEB-1998 04:54:19.0 orion said to VCBROWN
> > Sorry, Virgil. Knowledge is not just a matter of putting everything
> > in nice arrangements. It4s a matter of testing the theories which give
> > existing arrangements meaning. If the theory fails, then the jury is
> > simply out to lunch until a new theory unites our perceptions and is
> > subjected to rigorous testing. And so on.
> But it is a natural inclination of people to make connections
> between diverse encounters. And for many the jury is still out. There has
> been no directed verdict that said that the Essene theory was a failure.
> Until that time plaintiff may not expect the defendent to cease and de-
> I, for one, will continue to use the Essene theory until a new
> "paradigm" better fits the facts. In times past I have mentioned that
> a certain objection you may have had has been a problem since the very
> beginning of DSS research. Yes, there are problems with the theory; so
> what's new?
> What is needed is a new theory that explains the facts better than
> the old. Golb attempted to do this. Ian attempted to do this. But I think
> you hurt your case by not proposing an alternative theory. The human mind
> likes to make connections.
> > We can show what is *not*
> > the case, but not, obviously, what is. But for that very reason, once
> > a given arrangement has been cashiered, there is no retreat back to
> > it, and no logical defence of it possible.
> Part of the problem, I think, is the methodology that you use.
> Consider what you have written above. We can show what is *not* the case
> by showing what is. I do not understand this. You can show what A is by
> showing that it is not B. Okay, what is B? Do you know what B is? I'll
> tell you what; it certainly is not C. <G>
> Tell me what you know, Fred, not what I can not know.
> Virgil Brown