humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Jim Klein wrote:

> On Mar 18, 12:34 am, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > All knowledge is about how things
> > really are.
>
> What's this mean? I thought that because it rested on our
> conceptualization and modelling, that it may NOT be that
> the Sun "really is" larger than the Earth.

Only because I don't think there is a "really is" in this case. What's
part of the Sun is based on where we decide to draw its boundaries.

> So apparently, you consider our ____________________ that the
> Sun is larger than the Earth, something other than knowledge.
>
> What, exactly? Are you with Gordon, that it's a belief?

No, it's knowledge. It's just not independent of consciousness.

> Or do you say that it's /only/ a model and that models
> neither have correspondence nor don't have
> correspondence? Or that they do, but we don't know
> which? Or something else, maybe?

It's part of a model that does have correspondence.

> > I'm not sure. It may be that we will never know this.

> We don't even know that the Sun is larger than the Earth,
> right? Remember? It's only a model so the Sun may or
> not be larger than the Earth.

We do know that the Sun is larger than the Earth. That was never in
dispute. What was in dispute is whether this is a fact independent of
cognitive necessity and convenience.

> Or, there's always the out that the way it "really is," precludes
> one from being larger than the other. Would you like to take
> that tack?

Nothing out there about what really is demands that the border around
the Sun be put in a particular place.

> > > > We have gotten better. Indivisible atoms is a pretty good model. It
> > > > does in fact correspond with reality, just not perfectly.
> > > "Indivisible" atoms never corresponded with reality, nor was there
> > > ever any reason to treat it as anything other than an hypothesis. The
> > > "pretty good model" is that atoms as basic (though "divisible")
> > > building blocks does in fact correspond with reality - perfectly.
> > > What's "imperfect" about it? Who any longer regards that as a mere
> > > "model"?
> >
> > Indivisible atoms appeared to correspond perfectly once too.

> The relevant question is, "DID THEY CORRESPOND?" That is,
> was there an actual, existential relationship of correspondence
> between our model of indivisible atoms and the way things
> are...the way things "really are." Quite clearly, you say no.

No, I say yes. The indivisible atoms (in our conception) corresponded
to divisible atoms (independent of consciousness). This is not perhaps
the best imaginable correspondence, but it's a correspondence
nonetheless.

> Quite clearly, the answer is yes...even if the model is imperfect
> because of precision issues or unknown elements. That's why
> we've been able to understand so much about chemical
> reactions, among other things.

Right.

> You are being absurdly stubborn in acknowledging that a model
> can be "how things really are," even if it's not "EVERYTHING that
> those things are."

Huh?

> Of course, but neither does knowing that something is false
> in a wider context, imply that it's therefore false in the
> narrower one. Stop looking at it theoretically, willya? Is
> the goddammed Sun larger than the Earth?

> Yes, no, we don't know, neither...WHAT?

Yes, we know. Again, the retarded straw man. This is about whether the
sun being larger than the earth is independent of consciousness. We
all agree that the sun (as presently conceived) is larger than the
earth (as presently conceived).

> > To render "divisible atoms" immune from the possibility of being an
> > imperfect model, you have to empty it of nearly all content.

> This is the error YOU are committing, making whether the Sun
> is larger than the Earth, be a claim exclusively about our
> consciousness. Hell, you don't merely empty it of content---you
> supplant it with some incorrect content!

You know what, there's no point in responding to you. After about the
fifth time you say ridiculous things like "*exclusively* about our
consciousness", it starts to get tedious. Have a nice day.

DS