May 27, 2012
by Neil Rickert
Seen in a comment at UD:
I.D. Is finally making some truly profound objections to evolution theory. Also, why are there still apes if we evolved from them?
Well, okay, that was only a comment. Perhaps we can’t assume that all ID proponents agree. But it does give us a moment of humor for this weekend.
Posted in humor, ID |
Comments Off on ID is making progress
May 27, 2012
by Neil Rickert
This poem expresses very well how I see what is going on in politics.
Rebecca Rose Poetry
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee
Were voted in by you and me.
Each one argued different sides,
Then hammered out a compromise.
And afterwards they’d have a drink,
And talk and argue; reason, think.
And just because they disagreed
Neither one once felt the need
To call one side “unpatriotic.”
(A charge that’s clearly idiotic!)
Now, Tweedle Dee felt passionately
That all should have equality.
And so he fought for civil rights:
Equal treatment: blacks and whites!
Equal treatment: straight and gay!
For everyone! In every way!
But Tweedle Dum cried, “Lower taxes!”
And “Government, get off our backses!”
(Which really doesn’t make much sense
Since Tweedle Dum’s constituents
Walk around with hands outstretched
For monthly governmental checks.
Where’d they think the money’s from?
From taxes, people! Don’t be dumb!)
You’d think they’d give Dum second looks –
They vote against their pocketbooks!
Now…
View original post 338 more words
Posted in Uncategorized |
Comments Off on
May 27, 2012
by Neil Rickert
I have made no secret of my disdain for the idea that knowledge is justified true belief, as is often asserted in the literature of epistemology. In this post, I want to say more about my own view of what constitutes knowledge.
I recently posted a parable, “The blind man and the cave” in to illustrate what is required in order to have knowledge. To my surprise, one of the comments dismissed everything that I thought important in that parable, and insisted that knowledge is just facts.
All the blind man needs to know is WHAT he is measuring (a fact), and then know the measurement (a fact). Then the facts that he gains (height of the cave) will be the newly acquired knowledge because he understands the facts based on previous facts learned.
That leaves me wondering why philosophers seem to miss (or gloss over) what I see as important.
read more »
Posted in epistemology, intentionality |
21 Comments »