Re: Karl Popper/False positives...life story

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Dan,

Good points,  we live in a world full of corporate
greed. When those corporate masters gain political
power, it becomes even more dangerous.  We live in a
world described as alway looking for good quality of
life, but when take a rigorous look,  this qaulity of
life is only accessible to minority. Further more, the
cost of this quality of life is dangerously high.  The
side effect of it is mass social exclusion and ended
with death.

Jerry


--- Dan Fiscus <***> wrote:

> Jerry,
> 
> These are good points you raise. Some replies to a
> few
> of them:
> 
> Jerry Zhu wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> >To Lyotard, scientific
> >knowledge can only be legitimated by a more gernal
> >kind of knowledge, that is narrative knowledge. 
> >
> >  
> >
> snip
> 
> >THe understanding of
> >knowledge can only portrayed as plurality of
> smaller
> >stories that function well within particular
> contexts
> >they apply.  
> >
> >Tarski formulated a theory of truth as the
> assertion
> >of described statement in an object language by a
> >metalanguage.  In another word, truth can not be
> >proved by the same language, it must correspond to
> >actual afair of another language.  Therefore truth
> is
> >not universal or abosolute, it is an assertion of a
> >sentence in one language by sentences of another
> >language.
> >
> 
> Another kind of knowledge or story or narrative or
> language that I think is important and can help us
> decide in various groups and communities what is
> true or useful is the story of life. Or the values
> of
> life itself. So for example, we could judge or
> critique
> or evaluate a statement or concept or model or
> process or science as a whole based on whether or
> not it helps us to live. I recommend thinking of
> this
> in terms of 1) to aid life of a diverse group or
> community, 2) in a specific local plus global
> location
> or context and 3) into the indefinite future, i.e.,
> very,
> very long term or in an open-ended sense. Using
> these criteria I come up with things (some discussed
> in the field of sustainability) as true and useful
> for life
> (of community, in real earth environments, into the
> open future):
> 
> 1. Use renewable energy
> 2. Recycle materials
> 3. Use coupled complementary processes (CCPs)
> like life does, e.g., autotroph-heterotroph,
> male-female, binocular vision, dual hemispheres
> of brain, etc. types of CCPs to achieve points #1
> and #2 above while also providing resilience,
> redundancy, robustness and re/combinatorial
> generation of novelty.
> 
> By these criteria, most science nowadays does not
> help people to live, nor does it even help itself to
> live
> on into the open future. Instead, by missing these
> simple truths or values gleanable from observation
> of life itself, they/we choose an evolutionary dead
> end. If not alive, then what is science? Dead or a
> machine I guess. Hmmm...
> 
> Dan
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com