tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319785.post995312823723358240..comments2023-10-21T14:31:58.215+02:00Comments on 01 and the universe: Lexicon for DebateOwen Swarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03023166526319714519noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319785.post-37026491857206880892008-08-07T10:44:00.000+02:002008-08-07T10:44:00.000+02:00The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is an exc...The <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu" REL="nofollow">Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy</A> is an excellent resource giving many carefully thought-out definitions of such contentious terms, and discussions of their attendant pitfalls.<BR/><BR/>The substance of this blog entry is, of course, the essential basis of postmodernism, which is one enormous and farcical celebration of mediocrity because it allows people to hold erroneous beliefs and still feel good about doing so, too. How is one to counter its proponents’ usual assertion that is meant to clinch the debate – you know, the one that goes, roughly, “Well, <I>my</I> reality isn’t <I>your</I> reality!” – except by issuing a hearty chuckle? How is one even to impress on the committed postmodernist (of which New Ageism is the most obvious and pervasive outgrowth) the ironic schism in his or her attempts to debate in the first place? After all, s/he takes the idea of subjective and individually constructed reality as a given, and by that assumption <I>cannot</I> legitimately challenge anyone else’s view, including one that asserts the existence of objective truth. Yet, they blather on with undisturbed passion and conviction, when they should remain silent, and thus negate their own position.<BR/><BR/>In short, I would add the terms “<B>truth</B>,” “<B>objective</B>,” “<B>reality</B>,” “<B>measurable</B>,” “<B>phenomenon</B>,” “<B>explanation</B>,” “<B>rational</B>,” “<B>supernatural</B>,” “<B>miracle</B>,” “<B>paranormal</B>,” and, last but certainly not least, the New Ager’s favourite “explanatory” catchalls for those things that s/he pretends to understand, namely “<B>quantum mechanics</B>,” “<B>dimensions</B>,” “<B>energy</B>” and “<B>vibration</B>.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319785.post-35144665986013043292008-08-05T17:36:00.000+02:002008-08-05T17:36:00.000+02:00I completely agree that not defining words properl...I completely agree that not defining words properly is a huge problem in debates. A bunch of my fellow-grad students and I have taken to asking anyone who makes a claim what they mean by all the important terms therein... it hasn't made us popular! :)<BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure you definition of "know" is a good one. Traditional epistemology defines knowledge as as having a "justified true belief" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology). But that runs into the Gettier problem - cue a truly MASSIVE literature.Anony Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077107616686254136noreply@blogger.com