humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <161d0270-eec1-4c05-ace3-
2fd6b3a9c8ac@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, fredweiss@papertig.com
says...
> On Mar 19, 12:33 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > In article > > @f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, fredwe...@papertig.com says...
>
> > > To give David the benefit of the doubt, he seems to be trying to
> > > defend "the contextual theory of knowledge", which is true and I of
> > > course have done so myself.
> >
> > Except that David's defense tries to be sensitive to the problems that
> > scientific knowledge poses for the "the contextual theory of knowledge".
>
> His try however reduces it to the Popper position which undercuts - in
> fact, rejects - both knowledge and science.

Not at all. First, David remains a justificationist. Second, he claims
that theories or models "depend on consciousness", while Popper holds
that they are objective. However, I am trying to get David (and Jim) to
see that the term "consciousness" is being used in an ambiguous way
here, so the second issue might not be that hard to resolve.

--
Gordon